1. If this is about WW2 carrier attack planes and we are talking about overall effectiveness as well as survivability I would have to vote for the SBD.
2. It was even used as a CAP(against torpedo attack planes) in the early days of the Pacific war before the carriers embarked more than one VF squadron.
3. Also it was a good scout plane because of it's long range(around 1100 miles)
4. The Kate was a good torpedo plane as well as a horizontal bomber.
1. Survivability is mainly relative, unless we are comparing different planes that performed the same mission on the same side at the same time. For Type 99 (Val), SBD and Ju-87 we're generally speaking of different opposition. I agree between the SBD and Type 99 in the Pacific in 1942, the SBD was relatively more survivable, but it faced a different defence. The SBD's biggest successes came when the Japanese basically failed to intercept it, at Midway (lack of radar direction and flaws in their CAP practices) and in most missions flown from Guadalcanal (Zeroes were based too far away to give good fighter cover to J convoys near G'canal, for the most part). In absolute terms, most SBD's that fought in 1942 (eg. SBD-3) had armor and self sealing tanks, better rear firing armament (2 v 1 rifle cal mg's) and much better fwd firing (2*.50 v 2 *.30), but the Val was actually faster despite the obsolete fixed gear arrangement, and probably more maneuverable (it was considered highly maneuverable even by Japanese standards).
2. But that was a failure. SBD's were used that way at Coral Sea and lost 4 while being credited with 4 Zeroes in one combat, but the combat involved Zuikaku Zeroes and they didn't record any losses. And even the USN at the time realized the SBD's had failed to catch the Type 97's (Kates) the Zeroes were escorting: they blew past the SBD's in a shallow dive. The tactic assumed enemy VT would approach very low and slow like USN VT because they had to launch their torpedoes very low and slow, but the Japanese didn't. Even just defending themselves, SBD's only downed a small handful of Zeroes in 1942 that can be verified in Japanese accounts (though they did also wound Saburo Sakai over G'canal). SBD success in air combat is mainly a misimpression given by war time claims.
3. It was a good scout. But comparing to the Japanese they didn't use the Type 99 as a scout. They used floatplanes as much as possible to conserve striking power, supplemented by Type 97's, in 1942. And the Japanese often flew longer searches than the US std 250 mile so practically the SBD didn't give the USN a longer scouting reach. An SBD was more survivable than most floatplanes though and carried bombs on scouting missions; Zuiho was hit at the Battle of Santa Cruz by a pair of scouting SBD's.
4. The Kate was clearly the most effective carrier based torpedo plane in 1942, and what's more it had been around since 1937, was really the TBD's contemporary not the TBF's. But I don't know how to compare a divebomber to a level bomber/torpedo plane.
I like the SBD, but I don't see a big difference between it and the Type 99 in 1942. The Type 99's and crews were more accurate in general in 1942, but the SBD scored more important hits as it happened. The Type 99 was relatively less survivable against the opposition it met than the SBD, but clearly an unescorted formation of either would be in trouble against numerous well piloted fighters of the most modern types in 1942 (eg. situations where Ju-87's got badly mauled).
Joe