Talk:T-95

If another tank was to be developed, would it be called T-100 something?

If another tank was to be developed, would it be called T-100 something?

-G

Probably not. Usually Russian tanks are named after the year in which they started to be developed or entered in Production, so it would be tentative to think that Russian tanks developed in the XXI century can be called maybe "T-2008" for example, or maybe they'll be switching to a more "western-like" tradition of naming their tanks as in the case of the Obiekt 640 (speculative T-94/95) which has as name "Chyorniy Oryol" (Чёрний Орёл or "Black Eagle" in Russian) and the "Bars" (Барс or "Snow Leopard" in Russian) which is the designation for an already-in-production model of the T-80, the T-80UD. I would like Russia to keep with that tradition of naming their tanks after the year in which they were created even though it wouldn't be as practical if they used 4 digit numbers by using the whole year like I exemplified.Probably they may lean to name them something like "T-05" or "T-10 II". Or maybe they'll be given a mxture of the prototype and tank tame, for example naming the "Obiekt 640" as T-640. ~ ~ ~ ~ZealotKommunizma

Naming after the year doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast rule. The T-50, T-60, T-70, T-80 light tank and T-90 antiaircraft tank were all released during early World War II, and the T-10 started life as the KV-10 in the early 1950s. The Ukrainian T-84 was developed and built in the early 1990s, the T-84 Oplot in the late '90s. —Michael Z. 2006-07-28 15:46 Z

Completely agree, though, most Soviet MBTs were named after the year of their development so it's easy to speculate that their following MBTs will be named after the year they were built. I also think of a new possibility that Russia might start naming their tanks in a similar way as with IFV's for example T-1 or T-2. But well, of course all this is speculation. BY the way, if I'm not mistaken the first T-84 publicly appeared on Ukraine's independence parade in 1996 (maybe I'm wrong), wouldn't that count as that the tank's development had started in early 1990's? 201.138.73.72 00:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Well, I think the T-84 was only conceived after Ukrainian independence in 1991, in response to supply problems of components from Russia for the T-80UD being supplied to Pakistan—I think in 1993 or so. —Michael Z. 2006-08-16 01:48 Z

Actally, the T-100 already exists.[1] It's a superheavy tank of the late 30-s --213.219.80.182 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If development on a new tank started in 2011, it would be called the T-11. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Objekt 640?

The Black Eagle article claims Objekt 640 is the name of that design. This article describes a different tank, so one of the two is wrong. Alternately this entire article could be incorrect and the speculative nature of the content really referring to early reports about the Black Eagle. Maury 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Eagle and "Obiekt 640" are exactly the same development according to some Russian/former Soviet sources. http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BlackEagle/

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/640.htm http://worldweapon.ru/tank/640.php http://altnet.ru/~military/?btvt/tank/2000/russia/blackeagle/index.htm

I hope this will make clear that the Black Eagle and the Obiekt 640 are the same tank.

The main speculations regarding to this tank, as far as I can see are:

1. Either if its production has started/continues or has been halted due to lack of funding. Lets remember lack of funding seems to be around 2001-2002, and taking into account late Russia's investments on weaponry it's very likely that, if production has been halted then it has been resumed.

2. Its official tank designation. Some call it T-94 others T-95, even some sources call it "T-80UD II" (mainly derived from the fact that some prototypes are the Black Eagle Turret over a T-80UD hull). As long as this tank remains prototype its official designation is pure speculation. Nonetheless what is not specualtion is wether the "Black Eagle" and the "Obiekt 640" are the same tank. I think there's a heavy load of information stating they are the same development.

3. The caliber of its gun which is being speculated to range from 125mm typical Soviet caliber to even 152mm with some versions being 130mm, 135mm and 140mm.

4. Wether if it's being developed for internal use or export Market. I think in this case it will be both. ~ ~ ~ ~ ZealotKommunizma

The Obiekt 640 is the Black Eagle. The Black Eagle is not the T-95. The Black Eagle, I gather, was an attempt for Omsk to get out of bankruptcy, and it was denied by the Russian Army. To reduce the cost of the entire tank and the fact that the Russian Army did not want the Black Eagle Omsk attempted to make the turret an upgrade package for older tanks, such as the T-72 and T-80. All pictures of the 'Black Eagle' I have are on T-80 chassis. According to Vasily Fofanov this 'Black Eagle' is not the original Black Eagle, nor close to what the Black Eagle really was. It's safe to say, however, that the Black Eagle will probably never seen wide scale production. At least, it's obvious it will not be sold for the Russian Army, and it's not likely that it will be exported. According to an article on in ARMOR Magazine the tank has been called by Russian sources the result of what happens when scientists have a lot of time and spare parts on their hands. Let's all remember that Omsk is bankrupt, as well! JonCatalan 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

Evidently the article, as Maury seems to have stated, is refering to another tank, the so called "Obiekt 195". I think this must be changed, I have allowed myself to make some changes to the article if the editors don't mind. ~ ~ ~ ~ ZealotKommunizma

This is the original tex which I have changed for the present one:

The T-94 or T-95 is a prototype main battle tank, currently in development in the Russian Federation. Most information about this tank is speculative. The tank is said to be of a novel design, with a very large smooth bore tank gun of approximately 152 mm calibre, in a remotely-controlled mount. Such an arrangement increases crew survivability, because the crew compartment is separated from the ready ammunition supply, and would be completely hidden when the tank is in a hull-down position. The crew will number just 3, all being carried within the hull itself.

Historically, Russian tanks are given official designations when they are adopted for production, so even the name T-95 is speculative. The actual current GABTU code of the vehicle is Obyekt 640 (Russian: Объект 640).

The current status of this project is unknown, it is possible that it has been frozen due to lack of funds and limited interest in the radically new design in the current geo-political situation. 201.128.98.189 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)ZealotKommunizma

Reverted

I see that what I wrote was reverted to almost the original article that I substituted. I'm not against it, nonetheless it returns to the confusion that was present in the original article. It must be clear that the tank described within this article is being confused with the "Black Eagle" or Obiekt 640.

The reason why I think both Ob. 640 and Ob. 195 should be included and both described in the article is that, in case any of the tanks was approved for production and entered service, any of the both can be called T-95.

However for the sake of accuracy both tanks shall not be confused. Ob 195 is readically different from Ob. 640. Once again the tank described within the article is the Ob 195 and is beaing denominated Ob. 640. This is incorrect and shall not permitted.

I start to think that the one who reverted the article is one of those opposed to unregistered users' edition of articles since this person gave no reason to change the article, which, I must point out once again, is completely inaccurate and misleading. I hope "official" editors can get to a consence on whether the article should stay as it is or be changed. And even so it is in urge to be expanded since it's very small and there's more information than the one that appears here in other sites in the net.

So well... for now, for the sake of the article, I will restitute the article as I modified it and won't desist until a good reason for the permanence of the until now current article is given.201.128.98.189 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)ZealotKommunizma

Please don't engage in idle speculation about other editors' motivations, as some sensitive editors could construe this as a personal attack—engage in discussion instead. There are no "official" editors on Wikipedia, but I encourage you to register for a user name, which carries some benefits.

This article will necessarily remain small until there is more to say about this tank. Its very existence is only rumoured, so all this article can do is report statements that have been made by authorities. Wikipedia must publish only verifiable information, so we cannot repeat all of the speculation that appears on mil-fan web sites and discussion forums—there is almost no verifiable information to publish about this tank at all.

The reason this article is titled T-95 is that a Russian Defence Minister has called the vehicle that, and that name is used in a number of sources, including at least one Jane's news item and a number of hobbyist sites. Giving the name "Obyekt 640" here seems to have been a mistake, and I've corrected that.

Information about the Black Eagle tank need not be duplicated here, because that tank has an article of its own, regardless of its possible future designation (this article's subject is a tank, not a name). If there is verifiable information that it might be designated "T-95" in the future then it should be stated there, but that sounds like unfounded speculation to me, since there is no evidence that the Russian forces are about to adopt either of these tanks. And that tank's article should not be titled T-95, because it is by far most commonly called the Black Eagle, and I believe that that's what its manufacturer calls it.

If you have more questions about naming, please have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions; the gist is that articles about things should be titled with their most common English name. Other names should be mentioned. —Michael Z. 2006-09-01 19:29 Z

Ok, I agree with the mentioning of the Ob. 640 here being a mistake, it was completely misleading.

This article anyway is on a speculative name which could be applied to any of the prototypes if entered production, so if the Ob. 640 was to be mentioned here as having this possible designation, then, I thought a diferentiation between it and the Ob. 640 was to be done. As I said, I agree with you that the best was to avoid mentioning the Ob. 640 here as the "T-95". But also the denomination "T-95" remains speculative since none has entered production and it could be a possible denomination to any of them.

And I apologize about that, how to say... precipitated accusation, it just seemed so to me on the start. 201.128.98.189 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Don't worry about that. Perhaps I should have written more of a justification on the talk page when I reverted your addition.

If it makes more sense, the article can refer to the tank as Obyekt/Object/Project 195, but it is most commonly called T-95, so that is what the article title should be (do we actually know it is called obyekt 195, and is there a reference to that fact?). If an official T-95 is later released or comes to light, then this article may have to move, or it may be expanded to include new developments. —Michael Z. 2006-09-03 01:14 Z

Folks, don't overedit/overjustify! Please, no "Project"s here! The term "project" is not used for tanks. Any (GABTU) designations refer to "object"s only. --jno 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the exact meaning of the Russian term ob”iekt (объект) in this context? English object has two main definitions. Does it mean a material thing? Or an intended goal or purpose?

It's convenient to translate the word as object, but in the context, it's impossible to tell what that means. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:26 Z

It means "machine (or installation) being researched and eventually built for testing" 195.218.211.41 (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Update 9/11/06: examining the source

The recent addition refers to a lenta.ru news item. The Lenta item merely cites defencetalk.com, and then repeats all of the rumours and extrapolation. The only relevant defencetalk article is a syndicated report from Agence France-Presse (AFP), which paraphrases a statement by an anonymous diplomat—barely more than rumour.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-11 17:04 Z

There is more in the lenta.ru story than in the defensetalk.com (AFT) story. Specifically, lenta.ru states that T-95 is already undergoing state testing and is scheduled to be serially produced starting in 2007. Lenta does not state the source of this significant information, however, so perhaps some scepticism is warranted. Profhobby 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Perhaps they do have more information, but not well enough sourced to cite. Or perhaps they are referring to older stories on their site which do cite other sources, which may be valuable for this article. Do you read Russian? (I don't). If you have a bit of time, look over the dozen or so pages Google finds on their site. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-12 18:10 Z

I read Russian and I looked through the google search results, but I did not find any mention of this information. So, we still don't know what their sources are for the information about serial production and state testing. Profhobby 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It says that the T-95 will be ready for Saudi Arabia by 2007, yet a user named Harkonnen, on Tank Net, says that the official Russian release date of the tank is 2008, not 2007 - he has some sort of list of contacts with the Russian Army, it seems. Although I don't think all his information is 100% correct, he does obviously have some sort of contact inside the Russian Army because he knows as much factual information as he knows non-factual information, and factual and non-factual alike they seem to all come from official Russian sources. It's very possible that the various articles that chronicled Saudi Arabia's potential purchase of T-95s actually meant T-90s. JonCatalan 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We can write about the stated intentions of people or organizations, if they have been published. But even then, plans like these are subject to change. Especially when the subject is a military secret. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 21:28 Z

Take a look at this thread on modernwarstudies.net; points to an article that claims that the T-90 may be sold to Saudi Arabia; not the T-95. JonCatalan 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

the T-95

Russia is resuming its milltary pardes as we all know that under the cold war new tanks has ben showed to the public under the parades so they might show the T-95 the parade wil be in May 9 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.5.65 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont think so :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.238.48 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a parade every year. What he's saying is that we don't need to break our back looking for info, it will be provided soon enough (similar situation as with pakfa)99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent info

Today I've had some talk about T-95 with one quite reputable and informed source, and the guy said that T-95 actually is not a one tank, but is in fact a semi-official designation of a design competition, where all three main tank development centers present their project. He said that between Omsk, Chelyabinsk and St.Pete there are five projects that entered the contest, and of them three prototypes are already built and are now being tested. I believe we could include it into the text, even if under the "rumors" title, as it looks convincing. --Khathi (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. One tank looks like a BMP/T turret and the other looks like it has a ring turret. There is at least one other but I've never seen an artists render or anything. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

T-100

Huh I always heard it was gonna be called the T-100 and there was an article about it(not the WWII version) why it's called the T-95?--76.94.173.73 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation speculations

Recently someone deleted the section on the T-95 being cancelled in may 1010 (and the three sources confirming the cancellation) and replaced it with an op-ed piece from march 2010 saying how good the tank might be if ever released. Apparently this was their evidence that the tank had not been cancelled, just delayed.

Firstly, May 2010 is AFTER march 2010, your op-ed piece is out of date. Secondly, had they checked any of the three sources confirming the cancellation of the project, they would have seen links to the actual press conference where the cancellation was announced. The cancellation of the T-95 is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Still occurring. Addition of POV and unverified material will be deleted. Keep adding it, and it becomes vandalism. King Pickle (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Its baffling why this is being deleted. I included THREE sources, including a press conference where the Russian minister of Defence announces the formal cancellation. So please, enlightne us all. If three independent Russian sources including the formal announcement of the cancellation does not count as 'evidence' to you, then pray tell, what does? This truly is simple vandalism.

By the way, there are clearly three people (at least) editing this article, can i suggest rather than just reverting all the time, we discuss the issue here? The fact is that the T-95 has been cancelled, I have provided five sources to this, and if you like I can provide more. The SINGLE March 2010 op-ed the 'deleter' cites (from 6 weeks before the cancellation) about how good the tank might be, is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, since the 'deleter' seem to be basing your entire claims of the T-95 NOT being cancelled on a single Rian news agency op-ed from March of 2010 (six weeks before the cancellation was announced), I think you may be interested by the latest source I added, another article (news article, not an op-ed) from the SAME Russian news agency, from June 2010, stating the tank HAS been cancelled. I trust that should put this whole debate to rest... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Don`t you understand that Gen. Popovkin statesments and soome other new sources of information from russian mass media about the future of Russian military purchases are trully just of speculative nature ?

Gen. Popovkin and allot of other russian generals and high military officials, gave allot of mislleading and untrue informations in the past, about the Russian military industry and projects.

Allso the western mass media, manipulated with this public informations allot.

In the case of RIA Novosti article, that interviewed the CEO of Uralvagonzavod company...this is something completely different than informations or speculations from Russian generals or western mass media or journalist "military analitics". CEO of one big joint stock company like Uralvagonzavod is 101% responsible for all his words that he has lounched in the public. Simply becouse every company in capitalism is responsible to their: costumers, market, shareholders, company corporate policy and it`s public reputation.

The same media speculations and conspiracy theories were allso in case for Russian high-tech projects of 21. century like: SUKHOI PAK-FA 5th generation stealth fighter jet, S-400 anti-aircraft system, SU-34 multirole tactical bomber, Pantsyr-S1 system, Topol-M ICBM, Borey class nuclear submarines, SUKHOI Superjet 100 project...etc.

And at the end, Russian companies developed and introduced their products to the market.

Let`s the both of us just wait until Russian Defence Expo 2010 in Nizhny Tagil on July 14-17 hapens, and than we will se who was right. OK ?

If you are the men enough, than you would accept the defeat and than never again edit this page.

Ok ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.19.102 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you completely insane? The statement from Gen. Popovkin, the Chief of Defence staff that the T-95 has been officially cancelled is NOT speculation. You may claim that he is Lying, but you had better provide evidence of that fact. The man at the head of the Russian military, including its R&D programs, has officially declared that the Tank has been cancelled, and FACT this has been repeated in major official Russian media, including Ria Novosti.

Do you understand how reality works? We now have SIX sources, including a direct quote from the Russian Chief of Staff, all confirming that the T-95 has been cancelled. That MORE than meets the Wiki standard for evidence. You on the other hand have provided NOTHING, not a single current source to back up your claim that the Russian chief of staff and the Rusian media are all liars. The T-95 has been Cancelled, and this Article MUST report that fact. IF something else turns out to be the case and you have actual EVIDENCE to back it up, you can feel free to edit this article then. Until then, your silly claims are nothing but unsourced vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen you and general Popovkin too !

Here is the article about the Russian President Medvedev, approving the development of advanced russian military projects of 21. century.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100628/159612679.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.19.102 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that utterly and completely irrelevant article. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this article, this tank and the debate at all. Shall I post a link demonstrating the Ukranian style of making cheese? It would have as much significance to the article anout this tank as yours did... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.252.130 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you people delete my add about the project being moved? It's 100% fact. Russia has approved a new rearmament program through 2011-2020 and the Uralvagonzavod factory still has the project active and Russia has transfered the bulk of it to a different program. This page is just watched over by biased Russophobes who don't want to truth out. Pathetic. It's obvious that the UVZ has not "cancelled" the project. Infact they recently released a statement saying that it was near completion, which is the link I posted as the reference which stated that the project was still alive and well. Like I said, the tank project is still active, government funding has just been cut... atleast for now. You need to allow the truth to be on the page and perhapes get a LIFE and stop monitarying wikipedia with false data. unsigned

The project being 'moved' is not 100% fact and appears to be completely made up. Your source said NOTHING of the kind and in no way supported your claim. Your claim of Russophobia is absurd, all people want here is the evidence based truth not your unfounded speculation. As for UVZ's statement, their funding has been cut, meaning they have no money, no tank and no export permit. Without Russian government funding the project is dead. Similar claims were made by Transmarsh when the Black Eagle was cancelled, in a bid to claim support, but of course with no funding and no export permit, the project died. This is not 'Russophobia', it is simply reality. Your source is worth mentioning, but I have edited the claim to fit reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The production of T-95 tank is NOT cancelled and Uralvagonzavod company has stressed many times now, that the prototype of T-95 tank has been build and showed on Nizhny Tagil - Russian Defence Expo 2010. Even Russian state arms export company Rosoboronexport reported many times, that the private show of T-95 tank was held for invited guests on test polygon "miner" in Nizhny Tagil - 2010.

CEO of Uralvagonzavod company mr. Siyenko, Minister Alexander Petrov and the President of Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of Russian Federation Konstantin Biryulin has dismised the falls speculations of general Popovkin. They all said that T-95 tank will be mass produced in Uralvagonzavod plant.

Even the Minister for Industry and Trade of Russian Federation mr. Viktor Khristenko who was at the opening ceremony of Russian Defence Expo 2010 in Nizhny Tagil confirmed that new advanced arms projects was demonstrated for the first time in Nizhny Tagil.

I must warn you that I am prepared for long term total war with you and everybody else who will try to dismiss this informations and try to revers this offical reports of T-95 project.

I am prepared to fight with you all the way to the end. I am ready to deal with you on all posible ways. Even if we will need the asistance of police and justice authorities.

I am preapared and ready to face with you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

STOP. Please keep all discussion to the content dispute at hand. Personal attacks on other editors must stop --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Listen: I am not sure how often this needs to be repeated, but I will try once more. The T-95 has been cancelled. This is not, as you keep trying to claim, 'lies spread by western media'. That is a particularily laughable claim considering every one of the SEVEN sources evidencing the cancellation of the T-95 are Russian. You also keep trying to reference an article from March talking about how the T-95 might be produced, which is completely irrelevant considering the OFFICIAL announcement about the tank's cancellation was made two months later. You can see for yourself, as one of the posted sources IS the official news conmference where the cancellation of the tank was announced. Now you come on and claim that the Tank was revealed at the Arms Expo, except that the link you provide makes no mention WHATSOEVER of the T-95, nor does the schedule or display list of the Expo, nor does a an internal search of their entire site. In other words, your repeated editing of this page, removing proven sources facts and replacing them with unsources made-up tripe is nothing but Vandalism. Please knock it off: if you do it again it will be reported to wiki authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Please do not joke with me ! I am in the bad mood, you do not know who you are dealing with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.20.152 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I am not joking with you, I care not a whit about your mood, and 'who I am dealing with' is a wiki vandal. And by the way, not only are your changes pure unsourced vandalism, but thay are also in TERRIBLE english, almost unreadable. I am going to open you belgian skull wide open, if you edit this page again ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.20.152 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC) So, you are guilty of repeated vandalism, ignoring of sources and fabricating and misrepresenting your own... you are guilty of waging your edit war on the article as oposed to making your points in the discussion, which is what it is used for, and now you are uttering death threats against other users. I have reported you to the wiki authorities. As to your repeated vandalism, can we PLEASE stick to facts, not wishful thinking? The Russian government has cancelled the tank, this fact is not questionable (please see 7 independent russian links cited in article). The tank may have been displayed at the 2010 expo, though Tass is actually reporting the tank displayed was an upgraded T-90, we DONT KNOW. One way or another the status of the project remains cancelled unless the Russian government and military change their minds. These are proven, evidenced FACTS, please stop substituting what is real with what you WISH were real... I have canceled your mother last night. She has litteraly pooped herself in her bed from pain, when I finised in her black hole. That is the fact, you can chek that in 7 different sources. I had to smack her face after that, so she could woke up ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.20.152 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for proving, in public, and for all to see, exactly what kind of person and what kind of intellect we are dealing with. Responding to you would simply diminish me, so instead I shall just say: {{adminhelp}} Bleh. I specifically haven't read the article, I've avoided learning what the argument is about, and I don't know whose statement is factually correct. What I do know is that someone's behavior is unacceptable, and that someone has been blocked. DS (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Private show of T-95 tank was now held on Russian Defence Expo 2010 in Nizhny Tagil . In April 2010, deputy defense minister of Russia Vladimir Popovkin said that the Defense Ministry has stopped funding the development of T-95 tank project and close it. In early July 2010, as reported by "UralInformByuro« Minister of Industry and Science in Sverdlovsk region, Alexander Petrov said that Uralvagonzavod will soon finalize a T-95 tank and produce it independently. According to Minister Alexander Petrov, the deputy defense minister Vladimir Popovkin decision to close the project "Object 195" was premature, and that the new tank will be in demand by customers. http://lenta.ru/news/2010/07/15/t95/ How many times you need aditional sourcess and aprovals from high Ministry, Military and Industry officials of Russian Federation, that "Object-195" new generation battle tank exists and it is real ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.20.152 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Gen. Popovkin is histrory ! His speculations are now officialy rejected by the highest Industry and Government officials of Russian Federation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.20.152 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, not only do you have NO idea what you are talking about, but you are not even bothering to READ the (far more accurate) information and sources you arev deleting when you endlessly revert to your same, POV, horribly mispelled vandalism. I shall make this clear for you: Popovkin is NOT history, his statement has bbeen confirmed by every media outlet in Russia, including in a second interview when he confirmed his statements. The Russia government has ended all involvement in the T-95 project, they will not fund it and they will not buy it. PERIOD. This has been cobnfirmed by a half dozen sources cited in the wiki article you keep deleting. Uralvagonzavod is trying to continue to produce the tank independently, but with no funding and no export licence, this is incredibly unlikely. these are facts, please stop VANDALISING the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You are schichofrenic who needs psychiatric help. You have been reported to Wiki authorities. You are the only vandal here ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You must understand that I will never end editing your continous lies, conspiracy theories and soeculations you are posting here ! STOP VANDALISING YOU PATIENT !!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your ranting. Please, feel free to report me to the wiki authorities, the same ones that just banned you for a day for being an insulting child. Sadly, you are startlingly, completely wrong. Everything I post has been sourced, now up to almost a dozen different sources, almost all of the Russian, some from as recently as three days ago. All say the exact same thing, that the T-95 program has been cancelled. You have never managed to produce a shred of evidence or a single source contradicting these FACTS, except one interview you keep citing, from two months BEFORE the program was cancelled. I am terribly sorry if the reality of the cancellation of the T-95 is somehow hard for you to accept, or swallow, but it is still fact. Look at the posting history of the article: you keep reverting to the exact same mispelled, badly written unsourced text (in flagrant violation of the 3rr rule), while I keep adding yet more sources and evidence every time, proving the cancellation of the T-95 as fact. So please, do us all a favour and grow up. The production of T-95 tank is NOT cancelled and Uralvagonzavod company has stressed many times now, that the prototype of T-95 tank has been build and showed on Nizhny Tagil - Russian Defence Expo 2010. Even Russian state arms export company Rosoboronexport reported many times, that the private show of T-95 tank was held for invited guests on test polygon "miner" in Nizhny Tagil - 2010. CEO of Uralvagonzavod company mr. Siyenko, Minister Alexander Petrov and the President of Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of Russian Federation Konstantin Biryulin has dismised the falls speculations of general Popovkin. They all said that T-95 tank will be mass produced in Uralvagonzavod plant. I must warn you that I am prepared for long term total war with you and everybody else who will try to dismiss this informations and try to revers this offical reports of T-95 project.I am prepared to fight with you all the way to the end. I am ready to deal with you on all posible ways. Even if we will need the asistance of police and justice authorities. I am preapared and ready to face with you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC) All due respect, but now you are just lying. None of your sources say anything like that. The CEO of Uralvagonzavod said the tank should be mass produced in an interview done two months BEFORE the tank was cancelled. This fact has been pointed out to you before, so you have no claims to ignorance about it. The tank has been cancelled, I and others have posted reams of russian sources all saying the same thing, while your sources in NO WAY contradict that fact. You are making up wishful thinking, and trying to present that as fact completely unsubstantiated by reality. As to your adolescent claims of going to war, go ahead and contact the police and 'justice' authorities, I cant wait to hear their laughter. You claim you are prepared to deal with this in 'all possible ways', but there is one way you have not considered: the truth. By the way mr anonymous vandal, are you aware that even your OWN sources contradict your fanciful claims? You cited http://www.lenta.ru/news/2010/07/15/t95/ as one of your sources, yet the article clearly states (last line) that the tank has been cancelled by the Russian government. If you can't even be bothered to read and trust your own sources, where do you get off vandalising this page with your unevidenced wishful thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.239.94 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "Private show of T-95 tank was now held on Russian Defence Expo 2010 in Nizhny Tagil . In April 2010, deputy defense minister of Russia Vladimir Popovkin said that the Defense Ministry has stopped funding the development of T-95 tank project and close it. In early July 2010, as reported by "UralInformByuro« Minister of Industry and Science in Sverdlovsk region, Alexander Petrov said that Uralvagonzavod will soon finalize a T-95 tank and produce it independently. According to Minister Alexander Petrov, the deputy defense minister Vladimir Popovkin decision to close the project T-95 "Object 195" was premature, and that the new tank will be in demand by customers." http://lenta.ru/news/2010/07/15/t95/ This is the exact translation of Minister Alexander Petrov statesment that was published on Lenta.ru article Everything else is your own interpretation and deliberate falsification of the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC) LOL. Right, I post links (NINE so far) confirming everything I have said, so have others: you post guesses and supposition, not in ANY way supported by your links, and in one case directly contradicted by your own links. And after all that, you accuse anyone else of falsification? READ what you just cited! The tank was cancelled and closed. Uralvagonzavod finished to prototype itself, but with no clients and no custpmers and no export licence, what next genius? That tank was cancelled by the Russian government, read your OWN SOURCES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.239.94 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I am not interested in your opinion, your point of view, your conspiracy theories and specultations at all. I am not interested in your old sources and speculations about project cancelation and so on. You and general Popovkin and tons of other cospirators are totaly biased information source about Russian Military Projects. Ministers, CEO of Uralvagonzavod and Rosoboronexport denounced spuculations of tank cancelation many times now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Even the greatest russian conspiracy theorist of all times from "Novaya-Gazeta" newspaper Pavel Felgenhauer cannot prove anything about T-95 project cancelation. He do not posses anything usefull to prove his ridiclous fantasys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.135.86 (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Again, with all due respect, you are flat-out lying. All of my sources are within the last 3 weeks, as opposed to yours which date from two months before the cancellation was announced. NONE ofyour sources cite a SINGLE example of any minister daying Popov was wrong or contradicting him. NONE of your sources cite a single example of the CEO of Uralvagonzavod saying the tank was still being funded or was under consideration by the Russian government, in fact two of your own sources CONTRADICT your silly claims flat-out. We both know this is the case. I have no idea why you are waging this silly war with reality, you clearly have not even bothered to read the sources, even your own. At this point, the only thing you are doing is engaging in more horribly written and mispelled vandalism, and making yourself look somewhat silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.239.94 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Why don't you all agree in middle ground? The Russian military has stated it will not fund or purchase the tank in it's current state but the producing company is continuing work on it so whilst the contract has been cancelled the actual tank could still be counted as existing and could potentially be resupported by the military if they felt it was improved enough to meet their needs. 86.133.56.137 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Your 'middle ground' suggestion is already in the original article, before our friend here tries to vandalise it. In fact it says specifically that The company might try and continue work on the tank, though it currently has no buyers or export licence. Our vandal friend here wants it to read that the tank exists and has been funded, despite the fact that there are almost a dozen sources presented demonstrating that this is false, and he has not presented a SINGLE ONE evidencing his claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC) "Why don't you all agree in middle ground ?" Becouse we cant. Becouse this terorist here is keep editing the russian media reports and russian federation ministry approvals of T-95 project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.20.109 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please continue a sensible discussion below here --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation of funding

Does not mean cancellation of project, which uralvagonzavod is continuing independently. It may still be available for input by foreign investors or even the Russian government once the modernization of the airforce stops sapping the budget. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As the Uralvagonzavod homepage itself states, the Russian government is the sole-source, proprietary funder of the tank in question. That means the company CANNOT get other investors, it cannot export the tank without Russian government permission. Russia has stated it has no interest in the tank due to institutional obsolescence of the design, and half a dozen other reasons, they are unlikely to change their minds, especially as their reasons for cancelling the tank are perfectly correct. The tank is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up article

I took alot of speculation out and put things into the past tense. DON'T change it back please. - Heaney555z (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed main gun name

It's the 2A83. The source that is linked to actually says that. I am going to assumed '2A81' is a typo. MicroBalrog (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)