Tranquilis: 60 Minutes did a piece on the bad battery issue in JDAMs a while back. It seems to be related to “lowest bidder”.
The OP asks among other things why not put Sidewinders (AIM-9)on a B-52 and make a fighter out of it. AIM-9s have a limit to their range, and in a larger and relatively unmanuverable aircraft (compared to more conventional notions of a “fighter” aircraft), the “FB-52” couldn’t get itself positioned relative to the target aircraft to successfully lock and launch. It also couldn’t get itself OUT of an attacking aircraft’s envelope to evade being a target.
Unless I misunderstood the OP… which is possible, because the USAF and USN seem to have had historically different notions as to what a “Fighter” aircraft is.
US Navy “F” for Fighters (F-1, F-4, F-8, F-9, etc.) have been principally or even exclusively designed for air-to-air combat, while Navy aircraft that drop bombs on surface targets were “A” for Attack aircraft (A-1, A-4, A-3, A-6, A-7, etc.). This isn’t to say that occasionally fighters such as the F-8 weren’t used in (or later in their service lives adapted to) the attack role, though.
For some reason, the US Air Force has avoided “A” attack aircraft with the exception of the A-10, and their “F” designated “fighters” have included aircraft poorly or totally unsuited to air-to-air combat, but much better suited to the attack-bombing role: F-105, F-111 (later redesingated the FB-111), etc. Maybe it has to do with their clinging to the idea of long-range manned bombers like the B-36, B-47, and B-52. With “B” bombers, “A” attack seems perhaps redundant?
Anyway, it’s only recently with budget cuts and multi-role electronic technology (and some really high power engines) that we see aircraft that actually are good at both the air-to-air role and the ground attack role. Some people would debate the FA-18 as such, but the F-16 and F-15E do pretty well.