While I recognize that an anti-ship capability is needed for surface ships, I'm not convinced that this makes any real improvement over existing capabilities. Except in rare circumstances, surface ships are not the go-to for anti-ship action. Aircraft and submarines remain the primary defenses against hostile actions by seaborne forces. Except for amphibious operations, surface ships exist to protect the carriers form hostile aircraft and submarines.
Once again, the pentagon seems obsessed to spend money on unneeded or unwanted weapons systems that “do everything sorta” while ignoring the real threats, or the need to update our core defense systems.
I agree that a Harpoon is a better ship killer.
The SM-6 will have a range of appx 200 nautical miles 70 miles or so more than Next Gen Harpoon
If the add on cost to the SM-6 is low enough it will give Aegis Class ships a bit more flexibility. With the smaller force we have on the water flexibility is a very good thing.
It is odd that so many people seem in love with hyper-supersonic anti ship missiles and then seem to not want to use SM as a supersonic ASM with dual role.
Both US and USSR have done this before of course Terrier,Tarter,Talos and Soviet Sunburn all had surface to surface option.
As for the warhead a unlike an aircraft there is a very good chance that the missile body will strike a surface target after or as the warhead detonates. The KE will be a nice add on.