Is LRASM not long-ranged enough?
Looks like LRASM for the USN is capped at 25 per year through 2021 (115 total) and the USAF picked up 46 through FY2019. Clearly this is the "stopgap" phase.
If SM series is converted to Surface-to-Surface purpose, How to solve smaller warhead problem?This surface-to-air missile had experience for air and anti-radiation targets, relatively soft-skinned ones. Destroying 'big ship' is another problem.
Given that full-caliber SM-6 would be a rather heavy, fast, high-diver, I foresee a whole lot of kinetic energy damage, in addition to the warhead. With luck, a big chunk of the debris blows out through the bottom of the target's hull.
thx for answers. with its kinetic energy, sm6 could be deadly for some parts of ship and for good penetration.but I still doubt it is less powerful than Russian supersonic monsters, having much heavier weight.is there any news that USN try to develop counter part of Russian or Indian big supersonic missiles?
A 21' Booster-less SM6 would be a capable PAC-2 replacement though the Army seems to not be in any sort of hurry to replace the legacy missiles or fund a new launcher.