So B-21 with stealthy glide bombs, not F-35 with JASSM.
How do you qualify this sort of vulnerability?
Look, the F-35 can already carry ALCMs. These are called JSM. They're just made to fit the 35, instead of shoehorning legacy stuff on the bird. The relationship is not linear and you have to specify the variables to plot out the design. 2klbs munitions is already a slight compromise in some way. And not everything needs to have interceptor class AAMs. If needed, just hang it off the centerline, like Kinzhal.
I'd very much like to see the US try to drop glide bombs on mainland Chinese targets with the entire PLAAF buzzing around, getting past several warships on top of that and lastly slipping past land based SAM batteries and long range early warning radars. That is not going to happen, not without anything short of science fiction and while I'm very fond of the B-21 it's an iterative improvement of the foundation that has been laid out by the B-2 before it.
A bomber not utilizing ALCMs or ALBMs during a peer conflict is most likely a very dead bomber. And given how expensive and valuable bombers are, they're not being put at risk in such a silly manner, this isn't the 1940s.
How I'd qualify vulnerabilities of subsonic cruise missiles? How about them being extremely slow targets for interceptors and air defense? And it's not like that's without precedent either, while the Ukrainians struggle hard with ballistic missiles, they can handle Kh-101s, which were designed with reduced signature in mind. These are launched from vast distances, with appropriate amount of warning time. A Kh-69, like the one that obliterated Trypilska TPP on the other hand can be launched much closer towards the target due to the launch platform allowing to operate close to or in contested air space for a launch.
What use is it to dramatically increase the risk of getting engaged while remaining for longer periods in contested air space to deliver a free falling bomb, when you can enter contested air space, launch your missile and exit contested air space instead? That not only reduces the warning time for the intended target of your missile, but it also shrinks the window of opportunity for the SAM operators to engage you before you delivered your ordinance.
So if there was a hypothetical F-35XL, it would make sense if it was able to launch full size ALCM/AShMs, especially given it's nature as a strike fighter and multirole aircraft. Especially when the munitions in question are already in wider use and people are familiar with its operation and maintenance. And the F-35 can already use it, just not internally carry it.
As for longer range missiles, what good reason is there to not extend your engagement distance further out, maintaining the advantage and reducing the risk of being engaged yourself. Especially when other assets like CCAs, other fighters or AEW&Cs can provide your missile with guidance beyond what your own radar could until the missile does it's own thing.
I can't really see how VLRAAMs or ALCM/AShMs being internally carried on a
stealth fighter are something bad, something to argue against. Especially when it's about a hypothetical where the opportunity of implementation would simply present itself. On that note, I'm sure J-36s will carry VLRAAMs and ALCMs, if not even ALBMs.
