Garry, one of the major issues that the 152mm gun on board Russian Cruisers/Destroyers may face is that they will have a range of less than 30 miles, and the rocket propellant needed to reach this far and the guidance system leaves little room for explosives in the projectile. Ideally when you have a 152mm you would want to go beyond 100 miles.
So the major issue you say, is that it lacks range, and that when range is extended by increasing propellent and adding base bleed and rocket boosting there is no room for sufficient explosive... and then you say it needs even more range...
First of all naval gun support is largely for use with landing operations or hitting small targets that don't warrant a missile.
Where the need for 160km range comes from I don't know, but you yourself suggest that such ranges leads to pathetic payloads... which makes the whole purpose of the system redundant.
The Russians have a range of guided munition options, some of which are cheap, and others are not so cheap, but range is not what you compare with payload... accuracy and the target are teh important things when considering payload. Even the lightest payload will be effective if the CEP is less than 1 metre and the target is soft. A super heavy bunker will require a large payload no matter what the accuracy is.... and everything in between.
For a decent naval gun support gun, I personally think the old 203mm guns on a specialised vessel would be the best basis but it would be great for the navy it would not really be so much use for the army... the army unit doesn't control that much area so having 160km range guns just means they are shelling their neighbours target or they never use their guns to their max range.
Note the Russians are getting extended ranges from new propellent and EM assistance as part of the gun design... by going for conservative ranges they get guidance and good range without having to give up payload... perhaps it is the US that is being stupid? All that extra range and their rounds can still be shot down by Klintock.
ERGMs may be useful against a few high-value targets, but are too expensive for general use, their GPS guidance can be jammed, and their warhead is far too small.
So your logic is that if the USN can't do it, the Russians shouldn't even bother?
The US Army decided that tank gun launched guided missiles were a dead end too because their system was a terrible failure... the Russians were much more practical in their approach and that resulted in a new system that could be added to existing vehicles... ie they created a new range of ammo instead of some super missile tank.