Standard Missile projects.

[SpudmanWP]

Is LRASM not long-ranged enough?

[TomS]

Is LRASM not long-ranged enough?

It is.  Point being, they aren't exactly showing a lot of excitement about buying it (or a comparable weapon) for surface ships. 

[SpudmanWP]

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.

[TomS]

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.

And those are all air-launched.  Rather than press on with the surface-launched version directly from LRASM as OASuW Increment 2, they've rolled it into Next-Generation Strike Capability, and they keep kicking that can down the road. 

[SpudmanWP]

What, the USN kicked the can down the road???

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!!   

Sadly, it's not like we haven't seen this before (NATF, A-12v2, S-3 replacement, etc).

[litzj]

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.

[Moose]

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.

It's not a "conversion," as they retain their primary anti-air role, it's an added capability via upgraded software. This is an important distinction because all the SM-6s, like all the SM-2s, already out in the fleet's VLS cells are also available to use against Surface targets as opposed to having to make room in the existing missile loadout for a dedicated ASM. As for the warhead question, sure you're unlikely to achieve the immediate destruction of any decent-sized surface combatant via a single SM-6. Shooting one at such a target, you're hoping the mass of the missile and the warhead will combine to damage critical systems (like radar) and degrade or mission-kill the ship. That's not nothing.

[TomS]

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. 

[bobbymike]

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.

Absolutely a nice close to vertical hole from the top of the ship through the bottom of the hull would be problematic for continued operations to say the least. 

[moonbeamsts]

Add a fusing option for the warhead for ship attack ,it opens all kinds of mayhem.

[litzj]

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?

[TomS]

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?

Not recently.  Certianly not since the dropped LRASM-B, the supersonic counterpart to the JASSM-derived LRASM-A.

As a practical matter, the USN is limited to antiship weapons that fit a 21-inch canister (maybe a tad more with a thin-wall canister).  Anything dramatically bigger than Tomahawk or full-caliber Standard is a non-starter.  So about 2 tons is about the practical size limit.

[marauder2048]

Given the additional internal volume that they have to play with, it's not hard to imagine an enlarged warhead
or an enlarged seeker. 

Also, sans booster, the Army could have a potential replacement for GEM-T.

[bring_it_on]

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. There are a few other things the PATRIOT system can borrow from AEGIS besides the SM6. The EASR or something based on it/AMDR would make a capable secondary 360-degree surveillance sensor and is as risk_reduced as one could hope.

[sferrin]

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.

IIRC PAC-2 has a higher top speed, longer range, and a larger warhead than SM-2MR (RIM-66).  (Which is what SM-6 is albeit with a different seeker.)