Not sure the F-35 would do much better in a non-permissive environment, due to limited capacity. Yes, it's got 8x SDBs packed in there. But IIRC if you wanted a HARM it would eat half of those SDBs, HARMs don't go on the AMRAAM pylons.
So if your assumed CAS mission needs more than 8x SDBs, then the F-35 loses stealth.
Eight SDBs is enough to destroy a major probing attack by an enemy armored battalion, but given the force densities in Ukraine, it might actually be enough to halt a brigade's major attack. There are no more attacks by entire battalions anymore, and haven't been since like...2003? It's more like three to nine tanks and a similar number of IFVs, and about 20 total armored vehicles including breaching vehicles.
A pair of F-35s would be able to ruin the day of 47th and 33rd Mechanized Brigades back in June. Of course, the 47th and 33rd Mechanized Brigades had their days ruined by a interlocked fire sac of Kornets, land mines, and 122mm guns.
Those two F-35s would be better used in a Six Day War style offensive counter-air operation to destroy a fighter squadron's operating base, with another pair of F-35s with HARMs for defense suppression, and maybe four for CAP and escort. Alternatively they could tear down part of an IADS or something, as eight SDBs would probably be able to knock out a S-300PMU battery.
That is not a small bomb load. It's two dead tank platoons per plane.
Well, I mean I guess it could, but only as long as you're willing to eat a silly amount of aircraft lost per so many sorties. Certainly more than what the Central Front expected, since air defense has evolved significantly since the 1980's, but probably to the point not "total tank buster death" amounts.
In any "non-permissive" environment the priority of ATF and JSF is to break the enemy air force, smash the air defenses, which allows the much more numerous and readily available F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s to roll in and crush the enemy's surviving battalions and the Army to win the war.
In a "permissive" environment, literally nothing matters, because it's permissive.