Generalization like what?

Remember these?

The JSOW also uses GPS, which can be jammed, and the F-35 cannot get accurate GPS coordinates at that kind of range. The JSOW C uses a penetration warhead. Even if you use it, it is likely to be shot down. You’d have to use several missiles for a strike to have a high PK.

It is not stealthy so it would be shot down most probably.

It will either have to enter at low altitude or it will need some help from aircraft with NGJs.

They are claims that are no more valid than someone claiming that the F-35 could fly right over a S-400 system and not be detected- pure conjecture.

So what other targeting method do you expect to use? At long range of course. And be precise, which variant of which weapon.

Not really interested in hypotheticals. Weapons are tailored to the target. What type of target? what range? deliverable from what platform? Your assuming GPS jamming completely negates use of GPS guided munitions (see above about making blanket statements)
Considerable work has/is going into developing families of weapons with a variety of guidance methods, so in the event an adversary could “shut off” GPS use entirely, stand off attacks are still possible:

SDB-II has a tri-seeker, Raytheon has both a homing and active seeker proposed for TLAM, Boeing has developed a IR seeker with image matching for the JDAM. AGM-154’s modular design allows for INS, GPS, and IIR (in the case of the c), the tests of the -ER, with the bolt on turbojet, were successful. If the need arises, JSOW variants can be produced with both longer range and active guidance.

So it can loiter. That makes it even easier to shoot down.

See above about making simplistic comments, again. Is it really so easy to shoot down a TLAM? Most shoot downs have been from TLAM programed in stream attacks (multiple missiles flying the same route). I would say that a proper attack with TLAMS coming in from different directions would be very hard to defeat. Even if a few are shot down, at a unit cost of roughly a half million dollars, it is cheaper than developing a new supersonic, or VLO cruise missile.

Nothing better than the TLAM will be available before about 10 years. They will probably go for something larger that a JASSM/LRASM to replace the TLAM and something probably much faster. There is no surface launched variant of the current LRASM in the pipeline with a dual land/anti-ship capability.

Did you read what I wrote about NGSC? look up the requirements. The requirement may end up being met by a variety of weapons, and there is no guarantee that the LRASM go ahead as OASuW Increment 2 (considering the merge of requirements with NGSC). The LRASM will be dual capable in it’s surface launch iteration. Whether it is chosen as the sole weapon to meet the NGSC requirements is a different story.
Range supposedly being a factor that would discount the LRASM meeting all NGSC requirements (but as Lockheed has pointed out, the increment 2 LRASM does not yet exist). One of many weapons (including a new Tomahawk) could be purchased in conjunction with the LRASM increment 2, to fill long range land attack needs.

some things for you to read
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2003-10-21-Boeing-Receives-Contract-For-JDAM-Targeting-Upgrade
http://www.defensetech.org/2014/03/03/tomahawk-re-routes-faster-to-hit-moving-targets/
http://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-pushes-lrasm-navy-looks-rearm

Stealth will be useful but it will not be fullproof, especially for initial strikes against an advanced IADS. There is a difference between being usefull and being sufficient on its own all the time. Again the fact that the F-117 was escorted on some missions by EF-111s during GW1 is a good example

Ok, first it would seem that you’ve not really read the response posts or followed what the USAF/Navy have been saying about countering anti-access systems. Your making silly generalizations like:

being sufficient on its own all the time

That has not been the way ANYONE plans or has planned to use LO assets since the 90’s. The mindset seems to be “Stealth isn’t invisible to radar, now these aircraft need to rely on support aircraft”. Well, other than the press oversimplifying the attributes of LO aircraft following the Gulf war and subsequent actions, most everyone in the military or defense establishment were well aware that stealth does not mean undetectable.

It is hard to say which one has the best range, given the fact that it depends a lot on the launch parameters. Against moving targets the SDB2 might have a shorter range than if it is used against a fixed target.
The JSOW would be less accurate using INS guidance if GPS is not available.

If it were true that INS backup was the only option to counter GPS jamming, but it isn’t: Rockwell Collins has developed digital multi channel antennas that make jamming/spoofing GPS signal much more difficult, not to mention that localized GPS jamming can be targeted with the development of HOG-J seekers. Not to mention SDB-II has a three mode seeker (optical, laser, and millimeter wave seeker).

Good luck with that if the radars move and if the datalinks are jammed. The TLAM and CALCMs are not sufficiently stealthy so forget it. And the TLAM, CALCM and JASSM have no terminal seeker suitable for that role. Can you tell me exactly which variant of which missile you would use?

Um, the block IV can and has hit moving targets (it has been tested as a LRASM entry).

Here’s an article on the subject.
.

You do realize that is the same article loke posted from national interest. The veracity of the “analysis” interjected by Osborn in between the quotes from Winston about the NGJ are questionable. If you notice, none of the quotes from the actual EW officer or Raytheon official support Osborn stating that “modern air defenses, such as the Russian-made S-300 and multi-function S-400 surface-to-air missiles, will increasingly be able to detect stealth aircraft at longer distances and on a wider range of frequencies”

Notice the “will” in that. There is no doubt that advances in powerful digital processors increase the accuracy and offer clutter reduction in low frequency radars. They most certainly can, in ideal conditions, detect LO aircraft from tactically significant distances (and track at longer ranges than mid-band).
The one trillion dollar question is how consistently can the track (in hostile EW conditions, less than idea atmospheric conditions) and direct targeting radars against LO targets.

While some act like low frequency radar utility for detecting low RCS targets is new, there were scholarly papers published in the 1980’s. The USAF studied the issue (and that’s all they will say). Yet from the F-22, to the SH, F-35, B-21, various drones…. they continue to invest in LO airframes. A discerning mind would conclude that low frequency radars, systems like the s-300 that uses arrays operating in several different frequency bands, are not a panacea. While the days of operating “stealth” aircraft unprotected and unsupported over hostile territory may very well be over, I do believe we have a few more decades before radio/micro wave LO is completely obsolete.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-the-us-navys-new-1-billion-electronic-war-attack-16025

The F-35 will perhaps be easier to detect in the not-to-distant future than some F-35 fanboys want us to believe?

Dumb comments like this are better left to YouTube posts. National interest=sputnik news. Of course advances in phased arrays, processing power have evolved to better counter LO designs. What does not change is that LO designs can shrink engagement envelope and coupled with EW systems like the NGJ, they are very hard to counter. Time to start looking at LO designs as a starting point for all future platforms rather than a niche specialty.

Addition- Should qualify the above to say “looking at LO designs as a starting point for all future platforms rather than a niche specialty if you want to have deep interdiction/penetration capability”.