The SM-3 is for exo-atmospheric intercepts only, i.e. long range (probably > 1000km) ballistic missile ONLY.

 

For the anti-air you want the SM-6 (in development, it is an SM-2 with the radar from the AIM-120D for terminal guidance beyond the range of the ship's radar).

 

see also: Subject: Modern Flying Fortresses, Subject: PAC-3, ESSM and SM-6 as AAMs, and Subject: Manned combat aircraft for previous discussions.

I said "SM-3 style"...

I just picked a missile that have the similar size and weight then the ALCM. But ya SM6 fit better here.

It would be interesting what could be done with a modernized B-1.  The B-1B is faster than the B-1A at low level and has a much lower RCS but is much slower at altitude due to the different inlets.  Exactly what is proposed for the inlets on an F119 super cruising B-1R?  The B-1B has an RCS of around 2.4 m squared according to what is floating around on public sources.  Might a B-1R be much lower?

 

The B-1 has three internal weapon bays.  Why mess with drag and RCS and hang AAM's on pods vs launching them internally?

 

Whatever is used as a missile truck the added range if the launching aircraft is going mach 1.6+ at 60,000+ ft is very considerable.  Moreover, to operate as a missile truck for the F-22 would seem to require supercruise so if not a B-1R than we're still talking a sophisticated and expensive aircraft.

 

One serious advantage of the B-1R would be after the missile truck role falls off it goes back to being a bomb truck. 

Whatever new bomber the USAF comes up with (medium or large) one hopes this role is kept in mind.