1.- Actually in the Russian Armed Forces there are tanks modernized and non-modernized in active service. Modernization is not a requirement, and the tanks without modernization are still inside the standards.
I don't agree... the new training and doctrine of the army means they need better communications in vehicles... including being able to communicate to drones etc, and they also need upgraded viewing systems because they are now quite likely going to be expected to be able to fight at night as well as during day time and defensive systems like NERA and APS systems will increase armour performance without adding weight... while mass production and deployment of ERA and APS systems should help reduce their cost and make them fairly standard equipment across the armed forces.
Today is quite obvious that not all the tanks in active service have been modernized.
The process of modernization of tanks is going forward independently, like said in other of the points.
Russia wants to raise the level but this has not been achieved still.
Russia also will raise the standards for the (M)T-12
that are lower by far than for a T-72 without modernization, as example.
You talk like if the (M)T-12 would be to remain longer in active service than the 9P149 based on MT-LB, but this is very unlikely. The number of Khrizantema based on BMP-3 is too low to replace them, and Russia is moving to new platforms for future procurement.
It think they will be replacing the Ataka missiles before they replace the T-12... its replacement is already here... though the Krisantema is more expensive because it uses radar... but even their new tanks have radar sensors, so I suspect in the Armata divisions they will have an armata platform with Krizantema missiles... it might also carry Shturm and Ataka missiles as cheaper alternatives that are similar in size and shape to make it a more universal platform.
The real question is... front line... first line units that will get Armata... do they get T-12 or is it just in backwater units or mountain units... do the first line units get more missiles or different towed weapons, and equally what will the lower readiness units use when there are no more rounds for the T-12... I can't really see them putting the ammo back into production... it is a stop gap weapon that is used because it is there and it is free and it is still useful... what are they going to spend money on to replace it?
The replacement of the towed artillery is also there, and since longer time.
The reality is that Russia stopped developping towed artillery systems in the late 1980s, and since then, did nothing in this area, unlike in the rest.
The reality is that the D-30
has been totally removed from the Russian Army, and the replacement has been just... the 2S1.
Today, between all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces only about 1050 pieces of towed artillery remain in active service, about a half of them (M)T-12
150 Msta-B <------> 150 2S19 Msta-S
<------> 100 2S23 Nona-SVK
<------> 526 T-90, T-72, T-80
Russian Naval Infantry:
50 Msta-B <------> 50 2S5 Giatsint-S
50 Giatsint-B <-----> 50 2S5 Giatsint-S
<------> 24 2S23 Nona-SVK
0+ (M)T-12 <-----> 0+ T-72, T-80
Russian Airborne Troops:
<------> 150 2S1
In relative terms, the Russian Army is more advanced than other branches in the replacement of the towed artillery by self propelled artillery. In a moment when the reserve of D-30
are 0, and there is a need of help to allies with them, with (M)T-12
and even with some Msta-B, makes sense to move all them to the reserve and use them for aid in the following decade.
For the shor-term and the mid-term this replacement is fine. Veteran weapons to work with other weapons of the same age.
For the long therm, artillery weapons based on the new platforms are emerging, and the model in which are emerging is in line with this potential change.
We know at this point that Russia wants units where all the weapons are on a single platform. Which is the meaning of it for the towed artillery? Obviously Russia is not talking about Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang or BMD-4(M) tractors of towed artillery, this is quite absurd. Obviously is fairly better to mount the weapons on the platforms.
And in the refered to the tank/anti-tank weapons we know that all the tank/anti-tank weapons of a new unit are likely to be mounted in the same platform. Which is the meaning of this for the tanks and anti-tank weapons of these units? Tank and anti-tank weapons share the same weapons today. In the refered to tanks, obviously an armata platfor with a 125mm weapon mounted is a tank. How would be the anti-tank weapons in mounted in armata platform? Just the same 125mm mounted on the same armata platforms. Anti-tank weapons on armata platform are also tanks.
For the Kurganets platform? Both tank and anti-tank designs lead to the same weapon of 125mm mounted on the Kurganets platform. In this case would not be considered a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Some are calling them light tank.
For the Bumerang platform? Both tank and anti-tank designs lead to the same weapon of 125mm mounted on the Bumerang platform. In this case would not be considered a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Some are calling them light tank.
For the BMD-4(M) platform? Both tank and anti-tank designs lead to the same weapon of 125mm mounted on the BMD-4(M) platform. In this case would not be considered a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Some are calling them light tank. In this case the design has been presented, is the 2S25 SDM1.
Total standardization of platforms can not be achieved in units of the previous platforms, but to unify the tank and anti-tank roles like will be unified in the units of the modern platforms is doable in the short-term, and surely will be done at some point.