This is not keypublishing where members keep going back and forth when things are pretty obvious and all the relevant information is already available on the forum, so this would be my last post on the matter. There is plenty of evidence out there that shows that the baseline SM-6 is a 200 nm ranged interceptor. And no, pointing to an Ash Carter statement made well before the 1B showed up ( he was out of office when the program was started) does not point to anything. The SM-6 shares the airframe with the SM-2 Block IV ER which is a 200 nm ranged weapon. Your links are again not pointing to anything your post attributes them to. Ashton Carter was the Secretary of Defense during the Obama Presidency. A decision was made by the US Navy, and the DOD, to add a surface strike mode to the baseline SM-6 (Dual capability). It is this missile/capability that Ash Carter refers to in the two articles you've shared in your post. . The mode did not alter any aerodynamic or kinematic properties of the missile. It was considered mostly a software driven upgrade. A follow on SM-6 Block I with guidance upgrades to better counter more "advanced threats", retaining the dual capability, was designated as Standard Missile 6 Block IA.
Again, if you want to learn about the range of the various standard missile variants, go to the relevant sub section, read or ask the many other well informed posters here. Posting irrelevant data that in no way supports your claim is no way to go about it.There are three variants of the SM-6. Block I which is just an interceptor, the Block 1A, which is the same missile as block 1 but with software modifications to allow for surface attack and other guidance upgrades, and the in development block 1 b which upgrades the airframe to 21“
The extended range SM 6 many here refer to is a 21” missile that will likely increase the range of the weapon by at least 50% against the air breathing threats ( so closer to 300 nautical miles). the missile program (1B) was started in FY19 and is being accelerated through development for fielding in the near term.
Again, instead of rehashing old articles, just read the sub section dedicated to the family. It will avoid confusion and having others come in and state the obvious.
