Anti-Ship Missiles Thread

nastle77 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Interesting.

The all for one and one for all comment refers to the fact that these missiles operate as a pack using a datalink network.. since the late 70s.

Did that system also exist for the Sepel coastal anti ship missile system?

Would it be correct to assume that wolf pack operation is unlikely to be very important for shore based systems as the single prime target, the carrier, is unlikely to be within range of Russian shore batteries?

JohninMK wrote:
Would it be correct to assume that wolf pack operation is unlikely to be very important for shore based systems as the single prime target, the carrier, is unlikely to be within range of Russian shore batteries?

It is very important for any missile system.

Say you attack with two missile.
Chance of the defense is 50% to kill an incoming missile with a sam.

If the two incomming missile close to each other then the sam has higher chance of kill,and the sams in the second wave has targets even if one of the missiles destroyed.

If the two missile using wolf pack method then both of them comming on a path that stressing the sam system,and the killingof one missile leaves the subsequent waves without target.

So two uncooperative missile needs less sam to kill than the wolf pack ones ( I don't want to calculate the chances , but easy it to do )

game theroy

Did the Sepal also dropped to a low altitude when engaging its target ? but not a sea skimmer ? but I'm assuming was a lot more vulnerable given it could not be ripple fired like bazalt and it was also a lot slower ?

They would not be fired one at a time at targets... they would be coordinated. They were not sea skimmers in the tradition sense but an enemy ship approaching the Russian coastline wont be broadcasting its position with radars operating all the time so the threat of an incoming missile would be significant... turning on SAMs to defend the vessel would broadcast the vessels position to all in the region...

Would it be correct to assume that wolf pack operation is unlikely to be very important for shore based systems as the single prime target, the carrier, is unlikely to be within range of Russian shore batteries?

The Russian missiles will likely have a much greater range than export models and as such when US carrier groups move in to launch land strikes against the Soviet Union/Russia they will have to come within range so their aircraft can reach their targets.

Russian anti ship land batteries are not for hunting US carriers in the Atlantic... they are to blunt and push back any attempts at amphibious assault.... against WASP class LHD and helicopter carriers they would be devastating...

If the two missile using wolf pack method then both of them comming on a path that stressing the sam system,and the killingof one missile leaves the subsequent waves without target.

You clearly don't understand how the wolf pack attack works.

Take an Oscar II class SSGN... it gets a communication via satellite to warn of a carrier group that is say 550km away. The SSGN immediately launched 12 Granit missiles which climb to medium altitude for the initial flight phase at supersonic speed. After travelling 450km 11 missiles drop down to 20m above the wavetops, while one missile stays up high and scans the projected target area... that will be the first emission from the missiles so the first the targets know is one radar scan from 100km away from an altitude of maybe 500m. The missile that made that scan then examines what it detects and then knowing there are 11 other missiles divides up the targets. Lets say there is a single carrier and four support destroyers... the lead missile might allocate two missiles to each destroyer with the remaining four missiles targeting the carrier.

Note the lead missile scanned from 500m but dropped down to low altitude to fly with the other 11 missiles so the carrier group sees nothing on its radar while the 12 missiles are each given target data and the information is linked back via satellite link to the Oscar which may now decide to launch another 12 missiles or it might wait to see what happens.
If the lead missile is intercepted and destroyed the remaining 11 missiles will then vote a leader and that missile will reassign missiles to targets... so for instance if one missile is shot down, then one destroyer might be targetted by one missile instead of two.

The Granit missiles have heavy titanium armour plate protecting their warhead from frontal attack and would be very hard targets to knock down. The fact that they will be flying very low and very fast and will not reveal their attack until the last seconds would make them deadly...

Most of the time their attack would be coordinated with other platforms attacking too like AS-6 missiles falling from 40km altitude at mach 3, and 100km range torpedoes from SSNs times to arrive to destroy the steering of the ships at a time when the missiles are approaching....

Note only the lead missile reveals its existence to the target with a radar scan... the target has no idea whether there is one missile or 32. There are 12 or 24 missiles to a wolf pack but who knows how many wolf packs have been launched...

And now with the Yassen class and futur VLS equiped Kalina class, they will be able to do this with their nuclear attack and diesel subs with newer missiles, no need to have the big Oscar.

I gave the same idea but for diesel subs equiped with a hundred of small mach 3 missile with a range of 70-100 km but small warehead. GarryB suggested the 100 km Hermes missile. Lunch first some IR guided then some active radar finally some passive radar to dammage the ships . Combined with 12 Oniks lunched after the small missiles, the result would be devastating.

Oscar need long range missile because it's a SSN operating in the ocean. A diesel subs is harder to detect and can come closer to the battlegroup.

GarryB wrote:

Did the Sepal also dropped to a low altitude when engaging its target ? but not a sea skimmer ? but I'm assuming was a lot more vulnerable given it could not be ripple fired like bazalt and it was also a lot slower ?

They would not be fired one at a time at targets... they would be coordinated. They were not sea skimmers in the tradition sense but an enemy ship approaching the Russian coastline wont be broadcasting its position with radars operating all the time so the threat of an incoming missile would be significant... turning on SAMs to defend the vessel would broadcast the vessels position to all in the region....

It is the publicly communicated information, and I think it is way off from reality.

Ther is not so much information (I mean real) about the 700/800, but there is a lot of informaiton about the SR-71, and based on that there are a few interesting discrepency.
The ramjet on the 700/800 has an optimal speed of 4 mathc, maximum speed of 6 match,and optimal altitude of 24000 meter .
on sea level the speed of the rocket can't be more than 1.6 match, and the range dramaticaly reduce.

Due to the high speed a dopler radar can spot it even with high clutering.

The main target carrier has airborne radar, means the rocket can be spotted 250 km away.At least.


So, thereal protection is the small RC, high speed, manouver capability , close to the capability of the SAM rockets, long range and deltaV, and high flight ceiling.

I don't think that the 700/800 using sea skimming .
And I think the description of the strateg ( flying high and low and so on) doesn't ad up due to the fuel requirement and speed diferences.

They knew the US forces could detect their missiles from long distances... the purpose of high speed is to reduce the time they have to do something about it.

The early models of missile were not sea skimming... they flew at 50m altitude or so.
The new missiles however are fully sea skimming and can hit land targets now too.

They are working on scramjet motors for the new missiles, but currently the fastest missile they have has a rocket propelled speed of mach 2.9 for the terminal phase of the attack.

Moskit is reportedly able to fly at mach 2.2 at low altitude. Granit at mach 1.6 at the start of its flight and mach 2 near the end when it is much lighter having burned off several tons of fuel.

Granit has titanium armour to protect the warhead and would be rather difficult to shoot down.

GarryB wrote:They knew the US forces could detect their missiles from long distances... the purpose of high speed is to reduce the time they have to do something about it.

The early models of missile were not sea skimming... they flew at 50m altitude or so.
The new missiles however are fully sea skimming and can hit land targets now too.

They are working on scramjet motors for the new missiles, but currently the fastest missile they have has a rocket propelled speed of mach 2.9 for the terminal phase of the attack.

Moskit is reportedly able to fly at mach 2.2 at low altitude. Granit at mach 1.6 at the start of its flight and mach 2 near the end when it is much lighter having burned off several tons of fuel.

Granit has titanium armour to protect the warhead and would be rather difficult to shoot down.

If you check the three missile ( moskit/700/800) engine inlet the range and purpose of them become quite obvious.


The 700/800 has a conical inlet, adjustable ( I expect) the moskit has a fixed inlet.

Means that the moskit was designed for one altitude, the 700/800 felxible about the altitudes .

If the 700 engine data true then the maximum speed of it could be around 1.7 match sea level, but it means that the maximum speed of it should be 4-6 match 24000 meter altitude.

I don't think that the granit has titanium in the warhead.They have to had the inlet cone moving motor,and the radar in the front of the rocket.
The CIW has very small chance to hit it, so why they should bother with any armour?


If they updated the electronics of the rockets that means they have 100-300 kg extra weight allowance for the rockets.

I think the attack profile of th 700/800 flexible, and they can decide the best based on the distance and attacker profile.

And the true range of the 700/800 should be around 1500-2500 km.

Based on this if the attacker launch them from 600km distance then they have enough allowance to make a full circle around the target , around 200 km, to synchronise all wolf.

Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN] struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

Tsavo Lion wrote:Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN] struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

These are heavy, 7 tons monsters.

With upgraded electronics the range of them should be higher than before OR they can have more electronic countermeasure than before OR additional capabilities that fit few hundred (max 500) kg.


Just for reference, a MIG-21 is 8.8 tons, a granit is 7 tons.

These are small fighter jet sized missiles.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Перед самым выходом российских кораблей к берегам Сирии Северный флот показательно провел учения, в ходе которых атомная подводная лодка проекта 949 «Антей» поразила «Гранитами» еще и несколько наземных целей. Transl.: Just before sailing to the coast of Syria, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises during which nuclear submarine Project 949 "Antey" [Oskar SSGN]   struck with "Granite" a few ground targets. http://izvestia.ru/news/654331#ixzz4UMFphf7A
So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

These are heavy, 7 tons monsters.

With upgraded electronics the range of them should be higher than before OR they can have more electronic countermeasure than before OR additional capabilities that fit few hundred (max 500) kg.


Just for reference, a MIG-21 is 8.8 tons, a granit is 7 tons.

These are small fighter jet sized missiles.

Electronics have nothing to do with range and Mig-21 at mach 1.5-2 will have simiar or shorter range than granit. Granit is a really good missile but its lunch plateform are very expensive.

For the original question, if they replace them, they will destroy them because their are 3 types of vessel that carries them. If they don't replace them I don't think they wil use them in land atack mode (unless nuclear strike). They need all granits for attacking carriers.

Can they all be modified to LACMs & still be AShMs? I expected this development-the Oskar SSGNs can now also strike land targets- it makes them a force multiplier. They now have 8 active(some undergoing modernization), so if all get those LACMs, 8 x72 each'll carry=up to 576 extra missiles to project power ashore!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar-class_submarine#Project_949A_Antey

In theory they can. But it's simplier to use kalibr on different corvette and submarines + air lunched kh 101/55 which are in full production so cheaper.

I don't think they still produce granit, the stocks from cold war are enough for a war against carriers but not for land attacks. They are like Tu-95, still used but if they lost them they can't replace them wit a new one. I'm not sure about that, however if it's true the good qestion would be: with what would be armed the Slavas, kirov and Oscar if the granit are no more useable ??

The Admiral Nakhimov will carry the P-800 Oniks supersonic AShM. https://sputniknews.com/military/20140124186878185-Russia-Begins-Nuclear-Powered-Missile-Cruiser-Overhaul/
I expect the other Kirov CGNs, Slavas, and Oscars will in due time too.
http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Admiral Nakhimov will carry the P-800 Oniks supersonic AShM. https://sputniknews.com/military/20140124186878185-Russia-Begins-Nuclear-Powered-Missile-Cruiser-Overhaul/
I expect the other Kirov CGNs, Slavas, and Oscars will in due time too.
http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns

The 949M looks to be a signficant upgrade. Apart from 72 kalibre/Oniks, it also includes "fire-control, communications, sonar, radar, and electronic intercept equipment. The modernisation will also include updated Omnibus-M combat information and Simfoniya-3.2 navigation systems."

I wonder how much killing power does exocet and harpoon have? Compared to soviet era ASM

Uss stark was stuck by 2 still managed to stay afloat

The Iranian corvette in  praying mantis  was stuck by several before it sank

Hypothetically how many harpoon would be needed to sink a average soviet cruiser like kresta II ?

Most of the western reports and opinions during the cold war seemed to suggest that NATO weapons like Exocet and Harpoon were designed for mission kills rather than actually sinking a vessel.

Soviet missiles on the other hand were designed to be used against very very large ships and therefore could be assumed to sink most smaller vessels.

The western tactics likely included multiple hits as part of their strategy...

Means that the moskit was designed for one altitude, the 700/800 felxible about the altitudes .

Moskit was designed to defeat AEGIS and it did this by flying at a maximum altitude of 300m to acquire the target and the rest of the flight below the 7m minimum height altitude of the STANDARD naval SAM system used in the AEGIS class cruisers.

Later models got extended ranges by being able to fly high to improve range performance.

I don't think that the granit has titanium in the warhead.They have to had the inlet cone moving motor,and the radar in the front of the rocket.
The CIW has very small chance to hit it, so why they should bother with any armour?

the HE warhead is protected because the easiest way to defeat the missile is to make the warhead explode prematurely. In article discussing interception attempts by MiG-31s they mentioned that two R-33s were needed for the interception and suggested it was because of the armour around the warhead...

Based on this if the attacker launch them from 600km distance then they have enough allowance to make a full circle around the target , around 200 km, to synchronise all wolf.

Actually for AEGIS it would be better to attack from one direction as the number of engagement (ie SAM guidance channels) would be reduced and of course other defences like jammers and decoys would be less effective...

So, will they keep & expend them in that role even after they r replaced in anti-ship role with newer missiles?

That would be a cheap and effective way to use some up... though as targets simulating an enemy system would also be useful too.

Can they all be modified to LACMs & still be AShMs? I expected this development-the Oskar SSGNs can now also strike land targets- it makes them a force multiplier.

I suspect they are basically adapting the guidance systems along the same lines as they adapted the Yakhont to make it Brahmos...

So I would expect fully dual purpose guidance.

I'm not sure about that, however if it's true the good qestion would be: with what would be armed the Slavas, kirov and Oscar if the granit are no more useable ??

Oscars are being adapted for Kalibr/Onix... AFAIK the Granit is out of production but they might have the Vulcan still in production as an alternative.

I wonder how much killing power does exocet and harpoon have? Compared to soviet era ASM

Just look at Ominus Squids signature... when the missile is supersonic even wing parts become effective fragmentation... not just parts accelerated by the warhead.

GarryB wrote:

Actually for AEGIS it would be better to attack from one direction as the number of engagement (ie SAM guidance channels) would be reduced and of course other defences like jammers and decoys would be less effective...

I used to read popular science mags from the 30s.

Based on the popsci papers from 1938 the most advanced military aircraft detection system was like this:


The reality was like this


So, the description of the working of weapons can be interesting, but usually it come from an untrusted source.

Neither the Russians, neither the US has interest to share any real and valid information about own/enemy weapon systems.

So, based on this, the bandwidth /channel limitation is technical, it is easy to increase the number of control channels with the rockets.

However if the rockets attack from different direction then it become theoretically impossible to make minimal SAM engage strategy .

Of course I haven't calculated it, and I haven't spent too much time with it.
so any attack profile can be good.

But without too much time spent I think the best strategy should be to spread the rockets as wide as it possible.

I have a question regardin airborn anti-ship missiles. In Syria we could have seen a picture of Su-34 armed with Kh-35 missile. Are they in armament of RuNAVY Su-30SM and MiG-29K? Also Kh-59MK anti-ship missile is also integrated with Su-30 fighters. Are they in russian armament or they are used only with foreign users like China?

For now it was said that naval Su-30SM will be armed with Kh-31AD anti-ship missiles. They need Kh-35 and Kh-59MK as well as they have around 300 km range. Kalibr missiles will be real ultimate anti-ship weapon with around 500 km range.

Radars and missiles big enough to detect targets at very long ranges will be huge and expensive... and will therefore will be included in the targets assigned to SLBMs and ICBMs.

By the time the bombers get to their launch positions such targets will be vapour.

The US does not have an IADS system and would have to triple its defence budget for the next 20 years to get one...

Not going to happen.

Neither the Russians, neither the US has interest to share any real and valid information about own/enemy weapon systems.

Even an amateur like me can look at the new model of the AS-11 with two lower IR optical ports and work out that they have added a thermal channel for guidance...

In Syria we could have seen a picture of Su-34 armed with Kh-35 missile. Are they in armament of RuNAVY Su-30SM and MiG-29K? Also Kh-59MK anti-ship missile is also integrated with Su-30 fighters. Are they in russian armament or they are used only with foreign users like China?

I would suggest that would be a safe assumption... such a missile would be more useful to naval aircraft though the multifunction nature of new Russian aircraft and weapons would suggest usefulness against ground targets too.

For now it was said that naval Su-30SM will be armed with Kh-31AD anti-ship missiles. They need Kh-35 and Kh-59MK as well as they have around 300 km range.

Kh-31AD is reported to have the slightly shorter range of about 240km and a flight speed of mach 3.... I would think all three missiles would be useful...

For now it was said that naval Su-30SM will be armed with Kh-31AD anti-ship missiles. They need Kh-35 and Kh-59MK as well as they have around 300 km range.

Kalibr is a subsonic land attack missile and has a range of more than 2,500km...

Onix has a range of 500km at mach 2.5 or there-abouts...

What's the use of dozens of missiles when operating within home waters and with two or three weeks Endurance?

Any engagement will last an handful of hours if not minutes anyway, and It will end with one side being disabled or sunk by an handful of missiles.

In both cases, being the winner or the Lost, the Mission will be over and if being the winning side a port call to rearm and refuel will be at hand.

Greater numbers of weapons and ammunition are required for long off-shore missions, not for home waters defense.

About specialization in in large ships, first AAW missions require highly specialized hardware, second AAW ships have their specific geographic position in a Battle Plan.

So whatever the ship engaged with AAW missions, most of times It will find itself in a location where performing ASW missions will be hard or impossible.

The same applies to ASW ships as well.

Having antiship weapons could be ubiquitous, even having stand off Land attack capabilities could be ubiquitous, but AAW and ASW missions should be kept well distinct between them both functionally and phisically, i.e. in different hulls.

Udaloys are the ASW assets up to now and are fine ships, but Sovremennys are likely useless and need a replacement ASAP in my hopinion.

Peŕrier wrote:What's the use of dozens of missiles when operating within home waters and with two or three weeks Endurance?

Any engagement will last an handful of hours if not minutes anyway, and It will end with one side being disabled or sunk by an handful of missiles.

In both cases, being the winner or the Lost, the Mission will be over and if being the winning side a port call to rearm and refuel will be at hand.

Greater numbers of weapons and ammunition are required for long off-shore missions, not for home waters defense.

About specialization in in large ships, first AAW missions require highly specialized hardware, second AAW ships have their specific geographic position in a Battle Plan.

So whatever the ship engaged with AAW missions, most of times It will find itself in a location where performing ASW missions will be hard or impossible.

The same applies to ASW ships as well.

Having antiship weapons could be ubiquitous, even having stand off Land attack capabilities could be ubiquitous, but AAW and ASW missions should be kept well distinct between them both functionally and phisically, i.e. in different hulls.

Udaloys are the ASW assets up to now and are fine ships, but Sovremennys are likely useless and need a replacement ASAP in my hopinion.

That's why you need lot of missiles. If the oponent lunch lot of antiship missiles you need to be able to reply everytime. That won't necesserly last few hours if you manage to destroy the incoming missiles then you will need to go reload because you won't have anydefence left and the oponent too will go. So the battle isn't over. If you have more missiles you don't need to go back and can follow him and destroy him before he goes back.

But if you used all your missiles and there is a sub out there that lunch at you two more harpoons then your dead. And that's if you fight near your shores.

Destroyers and frigates are meant to go patrol far and be able to fight by their own. With the new VLSs you can easily put more missiles on a ship. When you look how little space VLS took on gorshkov you ask yourself why they didn't put more of them.

So, your opponents after having sailed thousand of miles, and having almost no chance to rearm, launches an all out attack against your corvettes?

Why?

To get a mission kill against itself depleting its own weapons?

In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

The first is the only option at hand while already engaged in a fight, the second being implemented only with time available.

So nobody would launch again and again missiles that have already failed to hit the target, only to hope someone would finally hit something different from water.

And against minor vessels like corvettes and attack boats, AAW defenses being minimal, even a saturation attack, to overcome SHORAD and CIWS if ECM was not the cause of failures, would require a little more than an handful of missiles.

In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

At sea, size does matter.

The real alternative would be to have several different kind of weapons, that was what Soviet Union did in the past, so to give enemy a real headache trying to defeat several different kinds of pattern of attack and guidance systems.

Peŕrier wrote:So, your opponents after having sailed thousand of miles, and having almost no chance to rearm, launches an all out attack against your corvettes?

Why?

To get a mission kill against itself depleting its own weapons?

In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

The first is the only option at hand while already engaged in a fight, the second being implemented only with time available.

So nobody would launch again and again missiles that have already failed to hit the target, only to hope someone would finally hit something different from water.

And against minor vessels like corvettes and attack boats, AAW defenses being minimal, even a saturation attack, to overcome SHORAD and CIWS if ECM was not the cause of failures, would require a little more than an handful of missiles.

In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

At sea, size does matter.

The real alternative would be to have several different kind of weapons, that was what Soviet Union did in the past, so to give enemy a real headache trying to defeat several different kinds of pattern of attack and guidance systems.

It is true for blue navy operation, but in coastal defence the small vessels are part of the defence system.

In naval warfare experience, a lesson learned is that if an attack fail, it is mostly because the opponents ECM defeated missiles sensors, and the right answer is to change type of weapon and or try to change/trim your weapons' tracking system behavior.

At sea, size does matter.

Small boat were always desstroyed by aviation. That's also in naval warefare exerience. Bigger ships could survive even hit.

Shorad and ciws are the last line of defence, not the defence itself. If you don't have proper anti air capabilities like a shtill or redut, they are useless.

In the end, either your missiles overcame enemy's ECM and AAW defenses, while yours succeeded in defeating incoming missiles, or no amount of missiles embarked will save small vessels against an enemy task force of larger vessels, with more ECMs, more and more powerful sensors, more kind of weapons and so on.

That's why I think they should put more missiles on their ships. If you think russian navy will send on ship against an enemy task force you're totally wrong. They will send many of them but if they have not enough missile for engaging all the missiles and fighter going at them they will loose.

A missile can go through your ECM, but in some situation also not. A missile can destroy antiship missiles, in some situation it won't because it depend of the situation.

ECM are not magic. missiles have ECCM and can go passively with home on jam. Jaming needs to turn the jammer at the missiles and if you have 4 missiles comming at you fromo 4 different side you won't jam all of them. And if you have just few missiles to shoot them and you don't succed, you will lose the ship.

Having more missiles means that you can shoot more missiles at a target and increase the Pk for anti shhip or anti air missiles. And you can jam or destroy with CIWS the one or two that went through your AA systems.

The typical tactic of air defence forces is to engage a same target from different direction, like a missiles going higher than the target and one going from the bottom so that ECM and evasive manœuvre won't work on both the same way and one of them will hit the target.

This will be always used, with S-300 or Buk or Tor.

Naval battles are more complicated than what you are saying.

The point is not to replace main battleships conceived before WWII with tiny toy boats requiring zero enemy resources to take out.
The point is to disperse the target and make it more difficult to take out. A point clearly not coming through the knee jerk wall of
dismissal. Endurance does not require super sized ships, it requires nuclear propulsion. Nowhere was that excluded. Russian
nuclear icebreakers are not all vast in scale (in fact it is only the recent Arktika class that have started an upsizing trend).

The moving goal posts about the non-example of armata take the cake. Let's keep on changing the subject, shall we? Because
anyone who does not worship oversized 1910s dinosaur concepts is automatically wrong. And really, WTF has the armata to do with
oversized gunboats? It's not an oversized tank and the fact that tanks have not been made obsolete has no relevance to the
fact that oversized gunboats from the brain activity of 1910s are obsolete. Recall the stellar success of the Japanese
and German super battleships from WWII. In reality, and not knee jerk rejection fantasy land, they served as some target practice
and got sunk toute de suite. Making essentially zero contribution to the war effort of Japan and Germany but sucking up precious
war time resources and thousands of wasted lives. If the enemy can deploy enough resources to take out your precious oversized
boats, then there is really nothing more to discuss, is there? And that was back during WWII.