Read the entire article (here...via Breaking Defense) but the operative statement is below...
As a result, Clark went on, “SM-3 can defend a large area against ballistic missiles, but can’t defeat a large number of missiles”: We simply can’t afford enough of them to stop a Chinese Second Artillery-style “salvo.” On the other hand, he said, SM-3 is perfect when you have relatively few incoming missiles to worry about but a large area to protect — say, defending Japan against North Korea.This boys and girls is reason for cheer.
SM-6 is shorter-ranged but cheaper and more versatile, Clark continued. It can’t defend a wide area, but you can afford enough of them to deal with a major attack on a point target: a crucial base or an aircraft carrier, for example. And once you’ve stocked up on SM-6s, he said, you can use them for a wide range of missiles: ballistic missile defense, cruise missile defense, anti-aircraft, or — “since the Navy is equipping SM-6 with GPS” — strike missions against surface targets.
I guess in the backrooms out of earshot, leadership is taking the threat from China seriously. Good to know. So they're working on checkmating the Carrier Killer. Awesome.
Now if someone from HQMC can explain to me how the Company Landing Team will survive a an assault from a Chinese Mechanized Infantry Battalion I might be able to chill out...at least for a few minutes.
Sidenote: So I guess its true. The SM-6 can be used in the strike role. Again, awesome...but why would you?