LOX/Hydrogen isn't as bad as you think. The mixture ratio of a LOX/Hydrogen engine uses way more oxidizer in the mix than a LOX/Kerosene engine. And LOX has a density of roughly 1.0 kg/L i.e. it's more dense than Kerosene. The problem is you will still have more fuel tank weight and volume, the hydrogen is less dense so you will need thicker piping for the fuel, which means the trust-to-weight of the whole rocket will be worse. Finally, and this is the worst aspect, Hydrogen is liquid at 20 K, versus 90 K for Liquid Oxygen (LOX). The further you want to go into the deep cryogenic arena the more difficult it is to keep the propellant stored at the proper temperature. Propellant handling is also more difficult.
Just looking at the Delta IV Heavy rocket would make it pretty obvious to anyone that it is easily possible to make a two stage to orbit LOX/Hydrogen vehicle if you wanted to. In fact the Japanese H3-30S is basically that. A two stage to orbit LOX/Hydrogen launcher.
Hydrogen-oxygen propulsion for rocket booster stages faces the issue of density-specific impulse, which is a fundamental concept that space enthusiasts should be aware of. The Delta IV Heavy launch vehicle adopts a CBC configuration, and without this configuration, additional boosters are necessary. Essentially, a CBC configuration rocket is just a rocket with two additional liquid boosters. The core issue is that without the use of strap-on technology, it is challenging for hydrogen-oxygen powered rockets to serve as booster stages for escaping Earth's gravity well without the aid of boosters.
Hydrogen-oxygen propulsion is not a one-size-fits-all solution; different rocket propulsion systems are suited for specific scenarios. In 10 years, you will witness the strength of China's space program, which is built on a systematic inventory of propulsion systems of various scales and types, ready to meet the diverse needs of future space transportation. In comparison, the United States will likely be missing about 30-50% of these products. The strength of American space lies in the variety of engine types documented in the American space encyclopedia (the engine models mentioned in the question are now part of history). Today's America can no longer produce as many advanced propulsion systems for the future.
If you study how China's new energy vehicles have achieved success, you will see a similar path to victory for China's space program in the future.
Smart people do things that yield twice the result with half the effort. It's only those who are strapped for resources, lacking funding, personnel, and projects, who are forced to compromise and try to dominate with a single product. In reality, this approach often leads to spending more and gaining less, which is to say, it's a case of more effort for less reward. This is because using an unsuitable technology in an inappropriate field will ultimately lead to a greater cost and limited outcomes. Using hydrogen-oxygen propulsion for the reusable launch vehicle's booster stage engine in Earth's gravity well is a choice born of foolishness and desperation, not a choice of true strength.