BTR

I'm tired of this. This is overestimaion. I can't trust this one. I am, and I will, with the Hunnicutt and S Zaloga's expectation, which defined t90 defensive ability as 850mm KE and 1100mm+ (or 1200mm) CE INCLUDING ERA.
Without ERA, 600mm is also quite overestimated value IMO. I almost expect 550mm for front turret without ERA, with cast + TiBDD.
 
That is also confirmed and double-checked from the leaked data,


During the explanation, he "accidentally" exposed the T90's defense capability to Russian new Czar. Of course this is ERA included data. And please, don't say something like "T90AM is GREATLY upgraded it is far far upgraded than MS ,it will be different" T90's basic design is not that different or upgraded. Wielded turret? That will NOT help this.
 
I think you're Russian or Pro-Russian European, but whatever, try not to trust on China / Russia source, because they seemed to very generous for their products, while have dual-standard against western technology. Nah, I know you will not listen, so I don't know why I wasted my time here :/

DCS called, it want's its discussion back. 

Taking a bit of a break. 

Taking a bit of a break. 

Another progress report:
 


 
Another question, tactical markings, yay or nay?
 
Example: http://i.piccy.info/i9/b8c123787bcaa4f484acfffc80f947e5/1421705561/24359/857457/6.jpg

I've seen 120mm go through T-90AM at about 1000m, so two tin cans are understandable  . 

Another progress report:
 


 
Another question, tactical markings, yay or nay?
 
Example: http://i.piccy.info/i9/b8c123787bcaa4f484acfffc80f947e5/1421705561/24359/857457/6.jpg

Another progress report:
 


 
Another question, tactical markings, yay or nay?
 
Example: http://i.piccy.info/i9/b8c123787bcaa4f484acfffc80f947e5/1421705561/24359/857457/6.jpg

"Obviously Russians won't bother with ROE"

Nice...

St Petersburg case:
-So NATO would risk fighting ~35% of all active Russian military, surrounding a 5M city using three weakest NATO members being the aggressor and risking a full-blown thermonuclear retaliation for a diversion? I mean, fine, but what would they be diverting? Most of Ukrainian fighting would be handled by Southern MD with reinforcements form Western MD and Central MD's, while fighting in the Baltics would be handled by the bulk of western MD with reinforcements from Central MD's. 
 
Kaliningrad case: 
-So NATO would risk provoking the said ~35% of all active Russian military surrounding the largest naval base in the area with about 14K active fighting land personnel, blockading 440K city being the aggressor and risking a full-blown thermonuclear retaliation for a bargaining chip? 
 
Russian intervention into NATO states:
-So we would risk provoking NATO reserve mobilization in a region not connected to the operation in Ukraine, straining our economy beyond measure activating over 50% of our active standing personnel, acting the aggressor and thermonuclear retaliation for a bargaining chip?
 
None of those scenarios are adequate or make sense if both sides are fighting a war of limited objectives in the Ukrainian theater of operations. At least to me anyways. 

Looking forward to getting my grubby hands on these.

De-vibrancing 10% seemed to do the trick. I'm fairly happy with the result for now. Bearing in mind it might look different on different monitors.  
 

After several stages I think I've found what looks most authentic in CMBS's lighting (T-90AM in the middle):
 

Ever since I got a look at how RA forces look, I've been meaning to get them looking right. Currently the Russian army adopted one single color scheme seen here:
 

 
Current vehicles, I feel, are too bright (green shade), or too grey. This is my investigation into the tint that vehicles should have:
 

Noticing how the PKM gunner doesn't stand out from the rest of the vehicle (as in the picture), I think I'm on the right track, but being new to CM texturing, I'd like to hear input from local experts. Please ignore green windows and rims, this is just a color demonstration  .
For comparison, this is how current Tigr's look:
 

After several stages I think I've found what looks most authentic in CMBS's lighting (T-90AM in the middle):
 

OPFOR's back.
 

OPFOR's back.
 

Ever since I got a look at how RA forces look, I've been meaning to get them looking right. Currently the Russian army adopted one single color scheme seen here:
 

 
Current vehicles, I feel, are too bright (green shade), or too grey. This is my investigation into the tint that vehicles should have:
 

Noticing how the PKM gunner doesn't stand out from the rest of the vehicle (as in the picture), I think I'm on the right track, but being new to CM texturing, I'd like to hear input from local experts. Please ignore green windows and rims, this is just a color demonstration  .
For comparison, this is how current Tigr's look:
 

This is very childish and uncalled for, I will report this for removal.

Наряд - so much in such a small word. 

While most of the **** is contained inside "Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS" thread (sorry OP), allow me to make a first thread of my own.   
 
This is a case-study about what is T-90MS with a bit of speculation of what T-90AM could be if it enters service. 
 
So, what what we know about T-90MS? General: -Mass 48+ tons.   T-90MS: Armament -2A45M-5  -Main gun linked PKT -22 rounds in the autoloader with increased protection  -10 round stowage bin with blowout panels -8 round internal storage   -PKT in T05BV-1 unmanned turret -Ability to use longer rounds in the autoloader   -Most recent rounds available:  3BM-48 “Svinets-1” APFSDS round (guaranteed 650mm KE at 0 at 2km); 3VOF-36 HE round (3.1kg of explosive); 3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence) 3VBK-25 HEAT round (600mm HE at any range)  3UBK-20M “Invar-M” TGM round (850mm HE after ERA, 900mm HE without ERA at any range)   Breakdown of ammo storage, green is the relative positioning of the engine.    FCS Kalina.  No current information on sights is available, therefore I used available information on current export sights with comparable characteristics. I have Sosna-U, but I am currently searching for PK PAN commander sight, as soon as I find it, I will update the charts.   
-Integrated tank information system
-Integrated, automatic battalion-level CnC control system (with or without a plug-in to Constellation-2M)
-Friend or Foe target spotting;
-Hunter-Killer capability;
-Automatic target tracking capability;
-Digital image enhancing for both commander and gunner sights.
-Improved stabilizer that can handle 40°/sec.
-(tentative) 4 perimeter cameras that feed visuals to both driver and commander
-Agat-MDT Independent two-channel (TV + Thermal) commander’s panoramic sight with integrated laser rangefinder. Stabilisation accuracy of 1° min. Day channel sight view angles 1x magnification at 7°15’ x 27°40’ and 8x magnification at 6°10’x7°15’. Effective day “tank” target type acquisition in clear weather is up to 4km. Thermal channel with 320x256 matrix with digital image enhancing with 1x magnification at 2°10’x2°40. Effective night “tank” target type acquisition in any weather is up to 2.5km with. Laser rangefinder capable of calculating from 0.2 to 4km in automatic mode.  
  Approximate ranges and angles for commander:  
-Irbis-K two channel, twin-axis independently stabilized (Optical + Thermal) gunner’s sight with integrated laser rangefinder with a laser beam for TGM control. Stabilization inaccuracies no more than 50’’. Thermal channel at 4x288 with wide view angle of 6.8°x9.0° and centered view angle of 2.3°x3.0°. Capable of automatic range-finding, adjusting for weather and compensating for gun stabilization inaccuracies including gun canting and thermal bending. Soft-adjusting from 2.7x to 12x. Commander can also fire the gun in manual mode. Effective day and night all-weather range at 3.2km. Effective day range of target acquisition not less than current Sosna-U sights on T-72B3.
 
Approximate ranges and angles for gunner:

  -Digital ballistic calculator with a 32 channel exchange-booth, I estimate it’s built on Elbrus-4C CPU architecture: 65nm tech level with 4 cores at 800mHZ and 64 gFLOPS.
-Additional power-unit integrated to support emergency FCS operations.
 
Protection
-Relikt ERA on glacis, turret and sides.
-Protection increase estimates:
2 times for CE (~800mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.9~2 times for CE
1.5 times for KE (~350mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.2 times for KE
-BTVT estimates T90A at 800-830 versus KE and 1150-1350 versus CE. with K-5 for thickest turret parts. Please note - btvt is likely to underestimate the T90A performance due to strong anti tagil bias
-With relikt, those numbers would be 1000-1038 KE and 1150-1350 for CE on the thickest part of the turret over what K-5 can offer.
-Relikt is Estimated to dissipate >0.6 (60%) of KE Rod energy
-RPG “nets” on engine and rear (turret and chassis)
roof has a good slope, which increases both LOS thickness and ERA effectiveness.
 
Below is the approximate armoring breakdown for frontal projection.
R: ~1000-900mm KE O: ~890-660mm KE G: ~650->400mm KE W: Inert
 



 
Countermeasures
-Shtora system is present on T-90MS, however optical jammers are not included in the demo version we all have seen
-Both Arena and Afganit are possible. Arena is however an export system with Afganit geared towards RA use. Since there is no idication of how Afganit looks and performs, going with Arena is the only option for CMBS.
-That said, Arena-E  is also functional as demonstrated on RAE-2013 and is more compact than regular Arena.
-Kalina FCS supports TShU-1-2M automatic smoke launcher integration (currently present in CMBS I believe)  
 
Powertrain
-V-92S2F2 engine with 1130hp (23 hp/t)
-Assisted gear-changing (not fully automatic) transmission
-(tentative) chassis management system as a function of ITIS (CLICK as it's found on T-72B3M)
  What we anticipate from T-90MA (speculation)
Appart from Agat and Irbis sights, one basic change that begs the question is armament change. Re-gunning T-90AM from 2A46M-5 to 2A82 seems like a logical step because:
It is available and has been in development for nearly 25 years.
It fits the caliber, and weight requirements of T-90 platform.
The autoloader capable of longer rounds is installed in T-90MS.
Ready rounds have been declared (Grifel-1(2) APFSDS rounds/ Grifel-3 HE round) while 9M119 TGM series can be installed to work as well
2A82 can be married into the FCS with software adjustments thanks to ITIS.

What do we know about the 2A82? Not too much really, but plausible numbers for estimation.
Muzzle energy is claimed to be 1.2 to that of Rh120 L/55.
It is longer than 2A46M. How much can be estimated, however glancing over what’s available on the internet I’d think some 40~50cm or so.

Why wasn’t it present on the T-90MS? As product placement for the MS has been geared towards export, the 2A82 could not be positioned since it is prohibited from export.
What could prevent 2A82 from being placed on the T-90AM if such a thing goes into service?
Cost. Not that 2A82 costs is any more prohibitive than 2A45M-5, but the cost of manufacturing new ammo set might be.
Armata preferences. The reason T-90AM isn’t being looked for as a procurement item, is because the budget is being geared towards Armata series. If it goes to production alongside the estimated T-90AM, then spending preferences would not be in it’s favour.

Another interesting point is the CPU unit used for FCS. Elbrus series is progressing forwards, releasing 8 core version for tests earlier this year with a 16 core version planned for production in 2017-18. So are the thermal matrices. Currently 768x576 and 1280x960 are available, but haven’t been utilized in any complexes  
Sourcing:

While most of the **** is contained inside "Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS" thread (sorry OP), allow me to make a first thread of my own.   
 
This is a case-study about what is T-90MS with a bit of speculation of what T-90AM could be if it enters service. 
 
So, what what we know about T-90MS? General: -Mass 48+ tons.   T-90MS: Armament -2A45M-5  -Main gun linked PKT -22 rounds in the autoloader with increased protection  -10 round stowage bin with blowout panels -8 round internal storage   -PKT in T05BV-1 unmanned turret -Ability to use longer rounds in the autoloader   -Most recent rounds available:  3BM-48 “Svinets-1” APFSDS round (guaranteed 650mm KE at 0 at 2km); 3VOF-36 HE round (3.1kg of explosive); 3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence) 3VBK-25 HEAT round (600mm HE at any range)  3UBK-20M “Invar-M” TGM round (850mm HE after ERA, 900mm HE without ERA at any range)   Breakdown of ammo storage, green is the relative positioning of the engine.    FCS Kalina.  No current information on sights is available, therefore I used available information on current export sights with comparable characteristics. I have Sosna-U, but I am currently searching for PK PAN commander sight, as soon as I find it, I will update the charts.   
-Integrated tank information system
-Integrated, automatic battalion-level CnC control system (with or without a plug-in to Constellation-2M)
-Friend or Foe target spotting;
-Hunter-Killer capability;
-Automatic target tracking capability;
-Digital image enhancing for both commander and gunner sights.
-Improved stabilizer that can handle 40°/sec.
-(tentative) 4 perimeter cameras that feed visuals to both driver and commander
-Agat-MDT Independent two-channel (TV + Thermal) commander’s panoramic sight with integrated laser rangefinder. Stabilisation accuracy of 1° min. Day channel sight view angles 1x magnification at 7°15’ x 27°40’ and 8x magnification at 6°10’x7°15’. Effective day “tank” target type acquisition in clear weather is up to 4km. Thermal channel with 320x256 matrix with digital image enhancing with 1x magnification at 2°10’x2°40. Effective night “tank” target type acquisition in any weather is up to 2.5km with. Laser rangefinder capable of calculating from 0.2 to 4km in automatic mode.  
  Approximate ranges and angles for commander:  
-Irbis-K two channel, twin-axis independently stabilized (Optical + Thermal) gunner’s sight with integrated laser rangefinder with a laser beam for TGM control. Stabilization inaccuracies no more than 50’’. Thermal channel at 4x288 with wide view angle of 6.8°x9.0° and centered view angle of 2.3°x3.0°. Capable of automatic range-finding, adjusting for weather and compensating for gun stabilization inaccuracies including gun canting and thermal bending. Soft-adjusting from 2.7x to 12x. Commander can also fire the gun in manual mode. Effective day and night all-weather range at 3.2km. Effective day range of target acquisition not less than current Sosna-U sights on T-72B3.
 
Approximate ranges and angles for gunner:

  -Digital ballistic calculator with a 32 channel exchange-booth, I estimate it’s built on Elbrus-4C CPU architecture: 65nm tech level with 4 cores at 800mHZ and 64 gFLOPS.
-Additional power-unit integrated to support emergency FCS operations.
 
Protection
-Relikt ERA on glacis, turret and sides.
-Protection increase estimates:
2 times for CE (~800mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.9~2 times for CE
1.5 times for KE (~350mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.2 times for KE
-BTVT estimates T90A at 800-830 versus KE and 1150-1350 versus CE. with K-5 for thickest turret parts. Please note - btvt is likely to underestimate the T90A performance due to strong anti tagil bias
-With relikt, those numbers would be 1000-1038 KE and 1150-1350 for CE on the thickest part of the turret over what K-5 can offer.
-Relikt is Estimated to dissipate >0.6 (60%) of KE Rod energy
-RPG “nets” on engine and rear (turret and chassis)
roof has a good slope, which increases both LOS thickness and ERA effectiveness.
 
Below is the approximate armoring breakdown for frontal projection.
R: ~1000-900mm KE O: ~890-660mm KE G: ~650->400mm KE W: Inert
 



 
Countermeasures
-Shtora system is present on T-90MS, however optical jammers are not included in the demo version we all have seen
-Both Arena and Afganit are possible. Arena is however an export system with Afganit geared towards RA use. Since there is no idication of how Afganit looks and performs, going with Arena is the only option for CMBS.
-That said, Arena-E  is also functional as demonstrated on RAE-2013 and is more compact than regular Arena.
-Kalina FCS supports TShU-1-2M automatic smoke launcher integration (currently present in CMBS I believe)  
 
Powertrain
-V-92S2F2 engine with 1130hp (23 hp/t)
-Assisted gear-changing (not fully automatic) transmission
-(tentative) chassis management system as a function of ITIS (CLICK as it's found on T-72B3M)
  What we anticipate from T-90MA (speculation)
Appart from Agat and Irbis sights, one basic change that begs the question is armament change. Re-gunning T-90AM from 2A46M-5 to 2A82 seems like a logical step because:
It is available and has been in development for nearly 25 years.
It fits the caliber, and weight requirements of T-90 platform.
The autoloader capable of longer rounds is installed in T-90MS.
Ready rounds have been declared (Grifel-1(2) APFSDS rounds/ Grifel-3 HE round) while 9M119 TGM series can be installed to work as well
2A82 can be married into the FCS with software adjustments thanks to ITIS.

What do we know about the 2A82? Not too much really, but plausible numbers for estimation.
Muzzle energy is claimed to be 1.2 to that of Rh120 L/55.
It is longer than 2A46M. How much can be estimated, however glancing over what’s available on the internet I’d think some 40~50cm or so.

Why wasn’t it present on the T-90MS? As product placement for the MS has been geared towards export, the 2A82 could not be positioned since it is prohibited from export.
What could prevent 2A82 from being placed on the T-90AM if such a thing goes into service?
Cost. Not that 2A82 costs is any more prohibitive than 2A45M-5, but the cost of manufacturing new ammo set might be.
Armata preferences. The reason T-90AM isn’t being looked for as a procurement item, is because the budget is being geared towards Armata series. If it goes to production alongside the estimated T-90AM, then spending preferences would not be in it’s favour.

Another interesting point is the CPU unit used for FCS. Elbrus series is progressing forwards, releasing 8 core version for tests earlier this year with a 16 core version planned for production in 2017-18. So are the thermal matrices. Currently 768x576 and 1280x960 are available, but haven’t been utilized in any complexes  
Sourcing:

While most of the **** is contained inside "Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS" thread (sorry OP), allow me to make a first thread of my own.   
 
This is a case-study about what is T-90MS with a bit of speculation of what T-90AM could be if it enters service. 
 
So, what what we know about T-90MS? General: -Mass 48+ tons.   T-90MS: Armament -2A45M-5  -Main gun linked PKT -22 rounds in the autoloader with increased protection  -10 round stowage bin with blowout panels -8 round internal storage   -PKT in T05BV-1 unmanned turret -Ability to use longer rounds in the autoloader   -Most recent rounds available:  3BM-48 “Svinets-1” APFSDS round (guaranteed 650mm KE at 0 at 2km); 3VOF-36 HE round (3.1kg of explosive); 3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence) 3VBK-25 HEAT round (600mm HE at any range)  3UBK-20M “Invar-M” TGM round (850mm HE after ERA, 900mm HE without ERA at any range)   Breakdown of ammo storage, green is the relative positioning of the engine.    FCS Kalina.  No current information on sights is available, therefore I used available information on current export sights with comparable characteristics. I have Sosna-U, but I am currently searching for PK PAN commander sight, as soon as I find it, I will update the charts.   
-Integrated tank information system
-Integrated, automatic battalion-level CnC control system (with or without a plug-in to Constellation-2M)
-Friend or Foe target spotting;
-Hunter-Killer capability;
-Automatic target tracking capability;
-Digital image enhancing for both commander and gunner sights.
-Improved stabilizer that can handle 40°/sec.
-(tentative) 4 perimeter cameras that feed visuals to both driver and commander
-Agat-MDT Independent two-channel (TV + Thermal) commander’s panoramic sight with integrated laser rangefinder. Stabilisation accuracy of 1° min. Day channel sight view angles 1x magnification at 7°15’ x 27°40’ and 8x magnification at 6°10’x7°15’. Effective day “tank” target type acquisition in clear weather is up to 4km. Thermal channel with 320x256 matrix with digital image enhancing with 1x magnification at 2°10’x2°40. Effective night “tank” target type acquisition in any weather is up to 2.5km with. Laser rangefinder capable of calculating from 0.2 to 4km in automatic mode.  
  Approximate ranges and angles for commander:  
-Irbis-K two channel, twin-axis independently stabilized (Optical + Thermal) gunner’s sight with integrated laser rangefinder with a laser beam for TGM control. Stabilization inaccuracies no more than 50’’. Thermal channel at 4x288 with wide view angle of 6.8°x9.0° and centered view angle of 2.3°x3.0°. Capable of automatic range-finding, adjusting for weather and compensating for gun stabilization inaccuracies including gun canting and thermal bending. Soft-adjusting from 2.7x to 12x. Commander can also fire the gun in manual mode. Effective day and night all-weather range at 3.2km. Effective day range of target acquisition not less than current Sosna-U sights on T-72B3.
 
Approximate ranges and angles for gunner:

  -Digital ballistic calculator with a 32 channel exchange-booth, I estimate it’s built on Elbrus-4C CPU architecture: 65nm tech level with 4 cores at 800mHZ and 64 gFLOPS.
-Additional power-unit integrated to support emergency FCS operations.
 
Protection
-Relikt ERA on glacis, turret and sides.
-Protection increase estimates:
2 times for CE (~800mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.9~2 times for CE
1.5 times for KE (~350mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.2 times for KE
-BTVT estimates T90A at 800-830 versus KE and 1150-1350 versus CE. with K-5 for thickest turret parts. Please note - btvt is likely to underestimate the T90A performance due to strong anti tagil bias
-With relikt, those numbers would be 1000-1038 KE and 1150-1350 for CE on the thickest part of the turret over what K-5 can offer.
-Relikt is Estimated to dissipate >0.6 (60%) of KE Rod energy
-RPG “nets” on engine and rear (turret and chassis)
roof has a good slope, which increases both LOS thickness and ERA effectiveness.
 
Below is the approximate armoring breakdown for frontal projection.
R: ~1000-900mm KE O: ~890-660mm KE G: ~650->400mm KE W: Inert
 



 
Countermeasures
-Shtora system is present on T-90MS, however optical jammers are not included in the demo version we all have seen
-Both Arena and Afganit are possible. Arena is however an export system with Afganit geared towards RA use. Since there is no idication of how Afganit looks and performs, going with Arena is the only option for CMBS.
-That said, Arena-E  is also functional as demonstrated on RAE-2013 and is more compact than regular Arena.
-Kalina FCS supports TShU-1-2M automatic smoke launcher integration (currently present in CMBS I believe)  
 
Powertrain
-V-92S2F2 engine with 1130hp (23 hp/t)
-Assisted gear-changing (not fully automatic) transmission
-(tentative) chassis management system as a function of ITIS (CLICK as it's found on T-72B3M)
  What we anticipate from T-90MA (speculation)
Appart from Agat and Irbis sights, one basic change that begs the question is armament change. Re-gunning T-90AM from 2A46M-5 to 2A82 seems like a logical step because:
It is available and has been in development for nearly 25 years.
It fits the caliber, and weight requirements of T-90 platform.
The autoloader capable of longer rounds is installed in T-90MS.
Ready rounds have been declared (Grifel-1(2) APFSDS rounds/ Grifel-3 HE round) while 9M119 TGM series can be installed to work as well
2A82 can be married into the FCS with software adjustments thanks to ITIS.

What do we know about the 2A82? Not too much really, but plausible numbers for estimation.
Muzzle energy is claimed to be 1.2 to that of Rh120 L/55.
It is longer than 2A46M. How much can be estimated, however glancing over what’s available on the internet I’d think some 40~50cm or so.

Why wasn’t it present on the T-90MS? As product placement for the MS has been geared towards export, the 2A82 could not be positioned since it is prohibited from export.
What could prevent 2A82 from being placed on the T-90AM if such a thing goes into service?
Cost. Not that 2A82 costs is any more prohibitive than 2A45M-5, but the cost of manufacturing new ammo set might be.
Armata preferences. The reason T-90AM isn’t being looked for as a procurement item, is because the budget is being geared towards Armata series. If it goes to production alongside the estimated T-90AM, then spending preferences would not be in it’s favour.

Another interesting point is the CPU unit used for FCS. Elbrus series is progressing forwards, releasing 8 core version for tests earlier this year with a 16 core version planned for production in 2017-18. So are the thermal matrices. Currently 768x576 and 1280x960 are available, but haven’t been utilized in any complexes  
Sourcing:

While most of the **** is contained inside "Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS" thread (sorry OP), allow me to make a first thread of my own.   
 
This is a case-study about what is T-90MS with a bit of speculation of what T-90AM could be if it enters service. 
 
So, what what we know about T-90MS? General: -Mass 48+ tons.   T-90MS: Armament -2A45M-5  -Main gun linked PKT -22 rounds in the autoloader with increased protection  -10 round stowage bin with blowout panels -8 round internal storage   -PKT in T05BV-1 unmanned turret -Ability to use longer rounds in the autoloader   -Most recent rounds available:  3BM-48 “Svinets-1” APFSDS round (guaranteed 650mm KE at 0 at 2km); 3VOF-36 HE round (3.1kg of explosive); 3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence) 3VBK-25 HEAT round (600mm HE at any range)  3UBK-20M “Invar-M” TGM round (850mm HE after ERA, 900mm HE without ERA at any range)   Breakdown of ammo storage, green is the relative positioning of the engine.    FCS Kalina.  No current information on sights is available, therefore I used available information on current export sights with comparable characteristics. I have Sosna-U, but I am currently searching for PK PAN commander sight, as soon as I find it, I will update the charts.   
-Integrated tank information system
-Integrated, automatic battalion-level CnC control system (with or without a plug-in to Constellation-2M)
-Friend or Foe target spotting;
-Hunter-Killer capability;
-Automatic target tracking capability;
-Digital image enhancing for both commander and gunner sights.
-Improved stabilizer that can handle 40°/sec.
-(tentative) 4 perimeter cameras that feed visuals to both driver and commander
-Agat-MDT Independent two-channel (TV + Thermal) commander’s panoramic sight with integrated laser rangefinder. Stabilisation accuracy of 1° min. Day channel sight view angles 1x magnification at 7°15’ x 27°40’ and 8x magnification at 6°10’x7°15’. Effective day “tank” target type acquisition in clear weather is up to 4km. Thermal channel with 320x256 matrix with digital image enhancing with 1x magnification at 2°10’x2°40. Effective night “tank” target type acquisition in any weather is up to 2.5km with. Laser rangefinder capable of calculating from 0.2 to 4km in automatic mode.  
  Approximate ranges and angles for commander:  
-Irbis-K two channel, twin-axis independently stabilized (Optical + Thermal) gunner’s sight with integrated laser rangefinder with a laser beam for TGM control. Stabilization inaccuracies no more than 50’’. Thermal channel at 4x288 with wide view angle of 6.8°x9.0° and centered view angle of 2.3°x3.0°. Capable of automatic range-finding, adjusting for weather and compensating for gun stabilization inaccuracies including gun canting and thermal bending. Soft-adjusting from 2.7x to 12x. Commander can also fire the gun in manual mode. Effective day and night all-weather range at 3.2km. Effective day range of target acquisition not less than current Sosna-U sights on T-72B3.
 
Approximate ranges and angles for gunner:

  -Digital ballistic calculator with a 32 channel exchange-booth, I estimate it’s built on Elbrus-4C CPU architecture: 65nm tech level with 4 cores at 800mHZ and 64 gFLOPS.
-Additional power-unit integrated to support emergency FCS operations.
 
Protection
-Relikt ERA on glacis, turret and sides.
-Protection increase estimates:
2 times for CE (~800mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.9~2 times for CE
1.5 times for KE (~350mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.2 times for KE
-BTVT estimates T90A at 800-830 versus KE and 1150-1350 versus CE. with K-5 for thickest turret parts. Please note - btvt is likely to underestimate the T90A performance due to strong anti tagil bias
-With relikt, those numbers would be 1000-1038 KE and 1150-1350 for CE on the thickest part of the turret over what K-5 can offer.
-Relikt is Estimated to dissipate >0.6 (60%) of KE Rod energy
-RPG “nets” on engine and rear (turret and chassis)
roof has a good slope, which increases both LOS thickness and ERA effectiveness.
 
Below is the approximate armoring breakdown for frontal projection.
R: ~1000-900mm KE O: ~890-660mm KE G: ~650->400mm KE W: Inert
 



 
Countermeasures
-Shtora system is present on T-90MS, however optical jammers are not included in the demo version we all have seen
-Both Arena and Afganit are possible. Arena is however an export system with Afganit geared towards RA use. Since there is no idication of how Afganit looks and performs, going with Arena is the only option for CMBS.
-That said, Arena-E  is also functional as demonstrated on RAE-2013 and is more compact than regular Arena.
-Kalina FCS supports TShU-1-2M automatic smoke launcher integration (currently present in CMBS I believe)  
 
Powertrain
-V-92S2F2 engine with 1130hp (23 hp/t)
-Assisted gear-changing (not fully automatic) transmission
-(tentative) chassis management system as a function of ITIS (CLICK as it's found on T-72B3M)
  What we anticipate from T-90MA (speculation)
Appart from Agat and Irbis sights, one basic change that begs the question is armament change. Re-gunning T-90AM from 2A46M-5 to 2A82 seems like a logical step because:
It is available and has been in development for nearly 25 years.
It fits the caliber, and weight requirements of T-90 platform.
The autoloader capable of longer rounds is installed in T-90MS.
Ready rounds have been declared (Grifel-1(2) APFSDS rounds/ Grifel-3 HE round) while 9M119 TGM series can be installed to work as well
2A82 can be married into the FCS with software adjustments thanks to ITIS.

What do we know about the 2A82? Not too much really, but plausible numbers for estimation.
Muzzle energy is claimed to be 1.2 to that of Rh120 L/55.
It is longer than 2A46M. How much can be estimated, however glancing over what’s available on the internet I’d think some 40~50cm or so.

Why wasn’t it present on the T-90MS? As product placement for the MS has been geared towards export, the 2A82 could not be positioned since it is prohibited from export.
What could prevent 2A82 from being placed on the T-90AM if such a thing goes into service?
Cost. Not that 2A82 costs is any more prohibitive than 2A45M-5, but the cost of manufacturing new ammo set might be.
Armata preferences. The reason T-90AM isn’t being looked for as a procurement item, is because the budget is being geared towards Armata series. If it goes to production alongside the estimated T-90AM, then spending preferences would not be in it’s favour.

Another interesting point is the CPU unit used for FCS. Elbrus series is progressing forwards, releasing 8 core version for tests earlier this year with a 16 core version planned for production in 2017-18. So are the thermal matrices. Currently 768x576 and 1280x960 are available, but haven’t been utilized in any complexes  
Sourcing:

@ Pictures - SOF units operating, supply convoys, special purpose equipment. That all has been discussed and is within the boundaries of what most Russian citizens believe to be our involvement in Ukraine. It is within boundaries of what I believe our involvement to be as well. No proof of any masses of greenhorn recruits riding around in battalion formations spanking Ukrainians though, and there will never be unless they actually do it.  
 
@Larger Russian involvement - Every time the Ukrainian's fail, they always have a good scapegoat - the ghost divisions. That memorial stone that is so spread around everywhere, that comes back to my first point. Small scale involvement is undeniable. Ukrainians crying wolf every time they lose is also undeniable. 
 
@T-72B3/BTR-82A - Ukrainian conflict proves a supreme testing ground for those vehicles, so sending them there in limited amounts makes sense to me from testing perspective. It makes a good case for why we haven't seen any more since early-late autumn.
 
@NATO vs Russia in terms of being silent or clear - When you are the world hegemony, you can afford to be vocal about almost anything. When you are not, silence is sometimes the best case scenario.