So basically, I think the IREK and H2/H4 aren't analogous at a 1:1 level. By design they serve two different roles.
The IREK -- or JDAM-type -- weapons are meant to be more cost-effective. Yes there's the risk of losing accuracy, but you still retain range and should (especially with INS) get closer to a target versus a GPB. You want to build economies-of-scale, we want these to be affordable and available in numbers.
The H2/H4 is for targeted strikes.
You want to make sure you are hitting the target (or avoiding it in Swift Retort's case) no matter what. E.g., we may want to knock out the S-400's radar if we find it.
In this case, terminal-stage seekers and remote-operability is key. It will add to the cost, but we'll keep these SOWs for very specific situations anyways (as we have IREK for most duties).
I think the natural evolution of the H2/H4 is a JSOW-type of weapon. In this case, we can design both the seeker options and even warhead options into the weapon from the start.
We can, for example, use tandem warheads, a penetrator warhead, or sub-munitions dispenser.
I think we should be able to develop this SOW locally.
It is like taking a smaller Ra'ad airframe minus the cruise missile functionality, and instead, making it into a glider. In addition, we add a rocket motor for range extension.
That said, China is offering us such a weapon.