Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

Thank you Admiral Kano, I am pleased that your reservations have been satisfactorily addressed.

Gentlemen,

We will now address the topic of our aircraft production.

Administrative notes: To adequately address this topic it is required that I temporarily do so out of character, and use anachronistic and/or ahistorical information.

1.)I have really struggled with how to address this topic and avoid using ahistorical information. I have finally decided that in this singular case it cannot be avoided. A prime example would be in aircraft names, most of the names commonly associated with many of the aircraft we will be discussing are Allied Code names assigned by the allied military to identify the aircraft. Obviously, the Japanese High Command would not be using these names but that is how we know them and we can't go back and erase that information from our memories. An example would be the G4M "Betty" bomber. The official name is Isshiki rikujo kogeki ki, Isshikirikko or Type 1 land based attack aircraft. If I were to use the latter term to discuss it we'd all be lost, but if I said G4M Betty or just Betty bomber, you'd know exactly what I was referring to, so I have decided, with your approval to go ahead and use the allied code names.

2.) I have also struggled with how to fully address the aircraft production issue without getting heavily into other aspects of the economy. It can't be done. With Belasar's permission we'll just have to allow the discussion to widen a bit. I will ask that the members not get totally off track, and we attempt to confine the discussion to economic issues directly related to the topic at hand. We could get very detailed into the economy, but a basic understanding should suffice for our purposes as they relate to the current topic. Basically, you have fuel, raw materials, manpower and physical factories that produce industrial output shown in the game as a generic heavy industry point (HI). This represents the factories that produce steel, aluminum, copper wire, etc. that other industry uses to produce a finished product. Then you have specific industries and facilities that turn these HI points into things we need. For example, you might have an HI factory producing aluminum sheet and billets. This is delivered to the specific factory, let's say producing aircraft. They'll machine the aluminum billet's into valves for example, or extrude it and machine it to produce structural framing, or roll the aluminum sheeting to achieve the necessary thickness and cut it to form aircraft skin panels. Or stamp it, or press it to form some other part. So these secondary/specific factories create a particular item. One factory might produce Mitsubishi HA-31 engines and there will be another producing HA-33's. There will be another factory producing airframes let's say for the G4M1 Betty, a twin engined bomber. The G4M1 model of the Betty requires 2 HA-32 engines so you must have an adequate inventory of that particular engine to produce the aircraft. Example: You have an airframe factory producing 30 G4M1 airframes per month or 1 per day. Your production of Mitsubishi HA-32's is 45 per month or 1.5 per day. You will not be able to maximize your production because your monthly requirement for this engine would be 60 (30 G4M1 x 2 engines=60). In this case engine availability would limit your production to three G4M1's every four days vs. the one per day your airframe factory is capable of producing. To complicate matters there are several aircraft that use or will use this engine, the Kawanishi E15K, Kawanishi H8K, Kawanishi N1K-J Kiofu, Mitsubishi G4M, Mitsubishi J2M Raiden, Nakajima B6N Tenzan and Yokosuka P1Y Ginga.

3.) I have spent huge amounts of time researching Japanese WWII aircraft engines, the problem is it is very confusing and sometimes contradictory. Part of the problem is the way the Japanese designated their engines. The previously discussed HA-32 had multiple designations, HA-32, Mitsubishi Kasei 11 thru 27, HA-101, HA-111, MK4A to V. At first I thought it was just me, then I found information at NASM (Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum) that let me know I wasn't the only one.

"Often, Japanese engines are summarily dismissed as “inferior." This is seldom the case. Considering the factors hampering the industry at the time, Japanese engineers produced many successful designs that rivaled any in the West. The mid-20s saw the first Japanese engine designs emerge, and within a decade, the Japanese had fielded two separate air arms capable, for the short term, of waging war with any western power.
Published information about Japanese aircraft engines of World War Two (as well as other Japanese subjects of the time period) is often confusing, misleading and occasionally just wrong. Published English-language information, based primarily on Technical Air Intelligence Center (TAIC) reports, tends only to repeat type and model identification mistakes made during the early days of war. In addition, TAIC reports were understandably focused on fighter powerplants and ignored the more mundane types used for transports and trainers. No document has yet been published that accurately and completely covers the broad range of Japanese engines.
The primary reason for the confusion surrounding Japanese engines is the type and model designations used by the Japanese military. The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) and the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) never formed a cooperative relationship. These military branches operated completely independently with regard to specifications, procurement and their relationships with manufacturers. (This extended to the point that the different service branches even chose different caliber ammunition for their weapons.) The designation nomenclatures for aircraft engines were service unique as well. The IJN gave their engines a multi-letter code while in development and a name and model number when the engine reached service status. The IJA also gave a development designation and service status designation based on the Japanese calendar year it was accepted into service. In 1942, a third system of nomenclatures was introduced, the “Unified” type designation system. In addition to this, most engines had a “popular” name. This name was often used in official military and company documents. A single type/model of engine, in service late in the war, could have as many as six unique nomenclatures."

It would be my suggestion that we adopt a singular designation system. I would prefer a hybrid of the several systems so the above mentioned HA-32 using my system would be HA-32 Kasei 11, the next model would be HA-32 Kasei 12, and so on and so forth. This will allow members that wish to read up on a particular engine to access more information because the nomenclature includes more information and I can more fully understand the specific engine we are wishing to deal with, without errors.

4.) The modeling of the industrial production in the game, with regards to changing of production and factory expansion, now needs to be addressed. For a factory to upgrade, increase production capacity, it incurs damage, that must be repaired before the facility resumes production. This simulates the need to remove and replace machinery/equipment, reconfigure production lines and make physical changes to the production facility. Being involved in the manufacturing and distribution business myself, (IRL) I think it is an ingenious and accurate way to model it. If you are altering your production from one item to another damage also occurs and must be repaired before production of the new model or item can resume. If you are changing along a model line such as HA-32 Kasei 11 to HA-32 Kasei 12, or from an A6M2 to A6M3 fighter, disruption will be minimal. (IRL, the changes necessary would be minimal) If you are making a major change such as from an A6M2 fighter to G4M bomber the damage incurred and therefore the downtime will be more extensive, as is appropriate. These factors should be considered and remembered as we manage all areas of our production throughout the game.

5.) Another decision we need to make, out of character, is if we wish to stick to the games included data base on aircraft or augment it with our own. Example: The A6M2 Type Zero model 21 "Zero" used a Nakajima HA-35 Sakae 12 engine rated at 950 hp. It had 2 x cowl mounted 7.7mm guns and 2 x 20mm Type 99 cannon. The 7.7mm guns proved inadequate against many western type fighters. The historical progression would be to the A6M3 Type 0 model 32 mounting the Nakajima HA-35 Sakae 21 with better high altitude performance due to the addition of a two speed supercharger and increased horsepower to 1130 from 950. There were a number of other modifications that were disliked and rectified in the A6M3 Type 0 model 22. The game models the engine as the generic HA-35, the different engine models are shown in the individual historical aircraft's performance figures. See attachment 1

My proposal would be that we input the data for the specific engine types i.e. HA-35 Sakae models 11,12,21 and 31 and submit our specifications for the aircraft. Say you decided armament was the most important aspect, when you develop the HA-35 Sakae 21 you could use the additional weight carrying capacity of the new engine to strengthen the wings and wing skin, (will also increase never exceed dive speed) retain the cowl mounted 7.7's and add 4 x .50 cal mg with ammo to the wings, increased ammo cap for the 20mm and still experience a significant increase in high altitude performance, a greater climb rate, and higher speed. A6M3 mod 32 had to have the engine mountings cut back to mount the HA-35 Sakae 21 which necessitated the reduction in the main fuel tank size by 13 gallons, decreasing range. We could mount 2 x 7 gallon self-sealing wing tanks (one in each wing) and regain the range loss from the fuel tank size and higher displacement engine. (This fuel tank change actually occurred in the A6M3-mod 22, the tanks were not self sealing, but Japan had the technology and ability to do so. They initially didn't due to weight concerns and operational doctrine. They did add self-sealing tanks in the A6M6c Type 0 Model 53c). On the later models like the A6M6c where the increased weight led to a decrease in maneuverability due to increased wing loading we could add "butterfly" combat flaps. All Japanese fighters except the A6M and Ki-61 had these flaps and they increased wing area without increasing drag at combat speed. We could install them to regain the lost maneuverability. I have spent months on working on a spreadsheet that can calculate all the related factors to give correct performance figures, using hp, full load weight, fuel capacity, fuel usage, wing area, wing loading and other factors. I've tweaked and tweaked to get it perfect. When I enter historical data it consistently comes back with +/- a couple mph or +/- or less, a few feet per second climb rate or a few mph difference in range (never greater than 9 miles which on an aircraft with a range of 1921 miles isn't too bad). Anyway it's so close that any variation would have a non-existant impact on the in game performance of the aircraft. So we need to decide which route we will pursue. The second course allows for more player defined changes based upon our different strategy for prosecuting the war.

I'll let all of you digest this information and ponder it. Ask any questions that you have. I will then post more info on the aircraft production issue.
Also see attached the aircraft currently available to us so you can begin to ponder what we want to build.

View attachment 17030

 

As this is a 'What-if' (of admittitedly epic porportions) I second the motion to use all relevant data in our deliberations. I also second the motion to use western designations where ever possible to help streamline our deliberations.

 

Re pilots, would it not be possible to use pilots to rotate on our carriers. This way we have trained reserves and if needed they could be used to support in land bases.

 

I fully support this idea and is one I have considered often. Each carrier should have two or more airgroups assigned to it. When attrition and combat losses begin to affect the capability of a unit (replaced unit) we swap them out with it's alternate unit (replacing unit). The replaced unit will rest, re-equip in pilots and aircraft, then begin training to rebuild it's combat skills. The replacing unit will serve on the carrier until such a time as it too needs to be replaced. Then the rotational system will begin again.

 

Thank you sir. It is an epic what if, but thus far we have managed to keep it both possible and plausible, unlike many what-if's. Also keep in mind we have the game system to restrain us to what Japan could have done economically.

 

Further thinking about pilot rotation, we can use the smaller carriers, Hiyo et all to fill out losses and the new fleet carriers, We can then take the new pilots and use them to replace the transfered pilots. When we rotate pilots out we can send the best to the training schools and then use them to form the replacements groups.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Be assured , as PrimeMinister , that they will knock you off eventually, & like ViscountTakahashi, be prepared to’ make your stand’.
The Imperial Armed Forces by 1938 consumed over 70% of theJapanese budget, & civilian Japan had sacrificed greatly. By 1940, they haveassembled an amazing empire, & were face to face with an armed &alarmed United States.
By 1946 the Philippines is slated for full independence.
I would ‘persuade’ Vichy France to formally yieldIndochina, settle with the Chinese Government at the Hwang Ho. Develop your MerchantMarine. Persuade the nascent Philippines to shift to the Japanese orbit

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a key point. The ‘old colonies ’The Ryukyus & Formosahad ‘integrated’ into the Empire. The military priorities were counter insurgency training & shipping protection.Counter insurgency & civilian administration in China was disasterous underthe Japanese administration.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Drill like crazy around the existing Manchurian Oil shales , until you hit the Dalian fields...

ORyou can divert steel into the production of ten - 100 times as many fushu retorts, as the Manchurian oil shales are a known source of marine bunker oil , in particular (low volatiles.)
do you have a current minister of energy, Honored sirs?

 

Guys, going out of character here for a moment. firstnorth has asked if we had a Minister of Energy and as all you know we have no one officially in this capacity.

As he is new to the forum and we have already begun offical deliberations I took the step to PM him about a few things so that he would understand what is expected of him, what we are trying to accomplish and that he understands that this is a long term project that will require the same dedication and hard work you have all shown so far.

firstnorth's answer's seem to indicate he understand's what we are trying to do. I have messaged Bob about this and he said firstnoth could be a good addition and I won't mind another civilian view within the council. The possibility of oil supplys already within Japan's grasp is tempting and Bob tells me we can edit in oil exploration/production centers should we go this route. Having said this I'll still need better documentation that that Japan could work with 'shale oil deposits', they knew of their existance and that we can exploit it effectively.

If no one objects I propose that firstnorth joins the council as Minister of Energy and ask Bob to create a suitable name for his character. If any you have any question's please feel free to PM me and I'll do what I can to answer them.

Darrell

 

From the military attache in Rome
Current combat experience is pointing that unprotected aircraft suffer significantly higher losses when involved in sutained combat operations. Also our experiences over China with unescorted medium bombers have been confirmed by European experience, they are unable to defend themseveves against significant figher opposition. The Italian approach of putting mnouverability at the top of the requirements for fighters has proved a failure. There is a visible trend towards more powerful engines (Italy is currently negotianting to licence build German ones), and the additional power is going into top speed and armament with the exception of the redesigned Me 109F that carries less, if better guns than the previous version. Twin engined two seat fighters have shown themselves unable to perform air superiority missions but have been effective as bomber destroyers thanks to the heavy armament and stable gun platform.
Most common aircraft armament is now a mix of 20mm and rifle caliber MGs, but "heavy" MGs are more and more often replacing the rifle caliber ones that can be defeated by relatively light armour.
If we are going to be involved in an air attrition battle we need true interceptors which stress speed, climb and armament at the expense of range. On the other hand for supporting offensive operations range remains a major requirement.
Due to the greater industrial capacity of our opponents the "range as force multiplier" design philosophy of the Imperial Navy makes sense, we need to force our opponents to spread themseves thin in the attempt to defend a huge amount of "in range" potential targets but it should not be taken too far with the resuly of taking disproportionate losses when circunstances forces us into a stand up fight.
So I would suggest concentrating production on the folowing "archetypes"
Fighters:
- Long range offensive (the A6M series is an outstanding example of what can be achieved even with a limited power engine). It's probably an evolutionary dead end as more powerful engines are likeky to result in significantly higher weight and fuel consumption.
- A shorter ranged interceptor armed with 4x20mm weapons and good climb and top speed.
- The Imperial army needs when/if we go head to head with wester powers are likely to be be better met by the "interceptor" than by the "offensive" model though current experience in the China theater against limited oppositions seems to favour the latter, the Ki 61 looks promising.
- A twin engined model to be used as escort fighter in low intensity areas, as night fighter and as heavy interceptor, the design may sacrifice manouverability as it should not be used where enemy single engined fighter are usually operating, it should still have good speed and climb as it needs to catch enemy patrol bombers, that are likely to run when intercepted, and high performance enemy "heavvies". When/if the enemy develops very long range single seat fighters it should be used for long range interceptions of incomming attacks to force them to jettison drop tanks assuring a "mission kill" and clearing the way for the short ranged interceptors closer to the target. (Assuming we can get our pilots to use such wise but apparently "dishonourable" tactics).
IMO the Rufe is a luxury, it doesn't have enough climb to be a true interceptor against patrol and recon bombers and we are not going to have enough of them to deploy them in sufficient numbers to counter even a one carrier strike. If the purpose is to "keep the enemy honest" by providing token intecept capability to forward floatplane bases it would make more sense to investigate putting a pair of 20mm guns in a few Jake like our German allies did with the Ar 196.
Carrier bombers:
The current "range above all" doctrine is sound, fist strike capability is critical, but second generation planes must stress durability more as AA fire is likely to increase and they need to survive it to deliver the attack, defence against interceptors must be provided by escort fighters, putting anything more than a token defensive armament is a waste of weight better used for fuel or armour. 50% strike losses is acceptable if we sink the enemy carriers from outside retaliation range (100% losses on their side), not if the targets survive.
I could make sense to develop a version with improved radio and defensive armament to be used for recon and by strike leaders, but as speed is the best defensive attribute for a recon plane it may end up too different from the basic attack model.
Light Bombers:
Most tactical support roles should be performed by more heavily armoured versions of the interceptor, removing a pair of 20mm should leave enough margin for bombs and possibly enough underbelly armour to withstand rifle caliber or even .5 hits, our German allies are developing specialized versions of their Fw 190 interceptor to complement their Ju 87 dive bombers in this role. Fortulately most of our engines are radial so better able to withstand combat damage, if we go for an in line engine for the interceptor (Ki 61) we may need to adapt the airframe to a radial (Ki 100) for ground attack.
We also need a weapon for attacking hard targets that require precision delivery (bridges, shipping, fortifications) , this should probably be a dive bomber despite their inherrent vulnerability during the attack, but it needs to be able to carry a big enough weapon to seriously damage hard targets with one hit, 750Kg is the max for current engines though a 1 ton bomb and 2000Hp engine would be better and make the plane hard to catch after bomb delivery.
Medium Bombers:
The Betty with it's enphasis on range is the core element of "range as force multiplier" doctrine and should be kept in production.
They must be paired with a shorter ranged but better armoured twin engined bomber model for operations in high attrition areas, this bomber will also probably better satisfy army requirements as fighter opposition is to be expected over the tactical battlefied. This is critical, the Betty and other "range above all" types with their huge fuel loads are too vulnerable for high intensity scenarios.
Heavy bombers:
Too expensive and basically an attrition weapon, due to our limited production capacity we want to avoid attrition combat scenarios as much as possible.
Short range naval patrol:
The Jake is good enough for both patrol and coastal ASW escort in the absence of enemy fighters, production should be increased . An equivalent of the enemy Hudson/Ventura would obviuosly be better, but possibly too expensive both to build and to support (they require decent airfields).
Tactical recon:
Most european combattants are going for camera equipped fighters here, we should be thiking along the same lines.
Operational recon:
We have a good plane in the Dinah, it's survivable enough to meet most of our needs in this area, the Babs should be phased out in favour of the superior plane. High performace recon planes are being countered by "stripped down fighters" in the European theater but this is a lot harder to do in our expected theater of operations where local commandes are going to resist loosing precious first line planes to over-specialization. We should be thinking of an even higher performance successor though.
Long range patrol and attack:
Every effort should be made to increase Mavis availability and to get the more advanced Emily in service, these planes should perform the following roles:
- Long duration ASW patrols over protected waters, "green" squadrons should perform this mission until ready for more demanding things. (This will also reduce the chances of a successful surprise attacks on the home islands by "raiding" enemy carriers).
- Additional recon support to Kidu Butai during offensive ops (this is likely to be costly but a few planes is good tradeoff to avoid a tactical surprise).
- Long range anti shipping attack, possibly even with submarine tanker support. This implements an extreme variant of our "range as force multiplier" doctrine as is hopefully going to cost our enemy a disproportionate amount of effort to counter, our German allies have been extremely successful with litterally a handful of Fw 200C and it's a much inferior plane to our ones for this role (though they had a more target rich environment).

As a final note something should be done to rationalize aircraft armament, the ideal would be to have one cartridge for all rifle caliber MGs and one for all heavvy ones. 20mm guns shoud be limited to two models and we should look into low velocity 30mm weapons for four engined bomber killers, as our German allies are currently doing. Larger caliber weapons are unlikely to carry enough ammo to guarantee hits in air to air combat and 20mm weapons apparently require multiple hits even against current medium bombers.

An energy specialist is more likely to be a sub-minister within the economics ministry in 1940 but we do need an energy specialist, after all the main reason we are risking war is to counter economic starngulation by cutting us off from energy sources.

 

What would the duties and power of the specialist entail. Is it advisory or will it have real power to do things.

 

firstnorth will be unavailable for a period of time so I am placing his nomination on hold indefinitly

Darrell

 

General (Ret.) Kourei Yuushou,
Thank you for your response. This is precisely the type of feedback I was wanting. I agree with most of your suggestions for the direction our aircraft development should follow and I like the way you illustrated the operational doctrines we should follow and related those doctrines to the types of aircraft we should produce.
The information you presented as to the development of tactics, aircraft and engines in the war currently being fought in the Mediterranean and Europe was also illuminating. It served to reinforce observations our forces have made in China and in the border clashes with the Soviets. It also falls in line with intelligence reports we are getting on aircraft evolution in the United States.

This is the path I too feel we must follow. We currently have a number of increasingly powerful engines getting ready to reach the production phase. I feel that we need to utilize this increased performance capacity to 1.) Increase aircraft armament and therefore lethality. 2.) Increase aircraft durability and survivability by mounting armor for the pilot, armored glass for the canopy, self-sealing fuel tanks and automatic fire suppression systems. I feel we should add these improvements in that order, armament first then protection.

Here is an example using the A6M2 Type 21 Zero. The A6M2 currently utilizes the Nakajima HA-35/Sakae 12 950hp engine and is armed with two cowl mounted 7.7 machine guns and two wing mounted 20mm Type 99-1 cannon. We have the uprated HA-35/Sakae 23 1150hp engine reaching the point we can begin mass producing it. We should use this extra performance to produce a more lethal version of our most capable fighter. We can increase the strength of the wing by reinforcing the structure and increasing the gauge of the wing skinning. (Historical note: The Japanese used a very advanced, top secret aluminum alloy in the A6M. Extra Super Duraluminum, ESD 7075 used zinc, magnesium and copper as alloying materials to produce a very strong, very fatigue resistant aluminum, with a strength comparable to most steels. ESD was more advanced than other aluminum alloys available, anywhere in the world, at that time. It was however much more prone to corrosion and the Japanese used special paints to counteract this). In addition to supporting the the additional weapons and ammunition weight I am proposing, the additional wing strength will give the aircraft a greatly increased, never exceed, dive speed. This will be handy in countering allied "zoom and boom" type attack tactics, it will also allow us to add this tactic to our repertoire, in addition to our standard dogfighting tactics that emphasize maneuverability.
We could change the two 7.7 cowl mounted guns to HO-103, .50 cal guns, a weight increase of 44lbs. (2 x 26=52lbs -2 x 48=96lbs). We could add 4 x wing mounted HO-103's, two port wing, two starboard, for an additional 192lbs. This would up the firepower from 2 x 7.7mm to 6 x .50 caliber. We also have the option of changing out the 20mm Type 99-1 magazine fed gun for the 20mm Type 99-2 belt fed gun with a higher muzzle velocity (T 99-1=1970fps mv/T-99-2=2490fps mv). The weight increase would be 50lbs (2 x T99-1 @ 55lbs=110-2 x T99-2 @ 80lbs=160). I would also increase the ammo load for the 20mm's from 60 rounds per gun to 100 rounds per gun, an additional ammo weight of 22.5lbs. So the total increase in armament would be @308lbs.
The HA-35/Sakae 23 gives us an increase of 21.05% over the HA-35/Sakae 12. The A6M2 has a HP/weight ratio of .18hp to the pound. In order to maintain this HP to weight ratio we can increase the weight of the aircraft to 6431.53lbs. full load. We will only need to increase the weight to 6021lbs to make the improvements I suggested (including additional fuel tanks which I will address in a moment). If we go with the lower weight, it will result in a HP/weight ratio of .19 HP/lb actually giving us a performance increase from 331.5mph to 352.2mph top speed and an increased rate of climb from 51.66fps to 54.53fps. The increased weight and engine displacement will result in increased fuel consumption and range (based upon the 137gallon fuel capacity) will drop from 1930 to 1701 statute miles. I feel this is still a very respectable range. Changes in wing loading are minimal and the increased speed more than negates them in level flight and maneuverability, take-off and landing speeds will remain largely unchanged.
The HA-35/Sakae 23 incorporates a new two-speed supercharger. It's greater length requires that we cut down the engine mounts to maintain the proper center of gravity, this effects the size of the fuselage mounted fuel tank, decreasing it's capacity by 17 US gallons. We can further decrease the aircraft's range, which I do not favor or add two 8.5 gallon, bi-lateral, self-sealing wing tanks. I favor the second course and have included it in the calculations I provided earlier. I would designate the aircraft we are discussing as the A6M3.
We are developing even more powerful engines. Research is continuing into the Sakae series and projections are that the Sakae 31, will produce 1130hp and using water-methanol injection could produce 1210hp in combat. We have been researching the Nakajima Homare series since 1940 and they are now entering the final pre-production phase, it is probable that we will be able to produce 1,650 hp in the Homare 11 which is the version closest to production and down range work is being done to develop the -12 rated at 1825hp and the -21 rated at 1990hp. I recommend we devote significant resources toward their development. Once the first version is fielded I would use it's increased performance to implement the improvements in protection we have discussed. The overall increase in the weight of the aircraft would be offset by the increased horsepower, but the large weight increase would effect wing loading and thereby reduce maneuverability. I would designate the initial version of this aircraft, with the protection improvements the A6M4. I would like to investigate the addition of "butterfly" combat flaps, as found on the KI-43 to regain the lost take-off and landing performance the increased wing loading entails. This would also allow us to retain and actually see a modest increase in maneuverability at dogfighting speeds. We could designate this as the A6M5 and the 5a with the increased performance Homare-12 1825hp and the 5b using the 1990hp Homare-21 when they become available. Mitsubishi is producing and developing the HA-33 Kinsei line of engines in parallel. It looks as if they will be able to produce a model in the 1300 and 1560hp ranges. It has a slightly greater diameter and would necessitate mounting and cowling changes, but I think we should undertake design studies into fitting the Sakae31 and Kinsei models as a precaution against possible development issues with the Homare series, these aircraft would have slightly altered performance characteristics and would be limited standard types, to be used as an interim measure. They would however be good insurance that we can field the improved types at the earliest possible dates.

 

General (Ret.) Kourei Yuushou wrote:

I am in total agreement that we have the need for a good short range interceptor for both the IJA and IJN. We will need to defend bases, resource centers and our own industrial centers against enemy air attack. A layered air defense based upon capable fighters and powerful interceptors is our best bet. We need to address this issue in a holistic manner. I have spoken privately with Admiral Noka and have given him a heads up that I have a special project that I would like to assign him. I will follow up with him on all the details, but one matter that the council members have discussed informally and I wish to pursue further, is the adoption of the US carrier operational practice of using deck loading to increase the size of embarked carrier air groups. If we can manage this I would like to use some of the increased capacity to embark carrier based interceptors for fleet protection. I would like to propose that when we develop interceptors we create a carrier based version on those types where it is possible.
I would disagree with the KI-61 being a promising type as I feel the development of our version of the Daimler Benz DB-601/HA-40 Atsuta 32 rated at 1200hp (actual output was somewhat less at 1175hp), is a dead end. We have been pursuing this option since 1938 and are still having problems meeting the close tolerances that this engine requires. We have only limited experience in the production and design these 12 cylinder liquid cooled engines and it is showing. We are much more advanced in the design and production of radial engines. Our radial engines are much easier to maintain, are many times more reliable, more robust and much of the advantage gained from the streamlining allowed by the reduced engine cross section can be negated by using advanced cowling design and the fitting of ejector stacks to add additional thrust. The KI-61 airframe is worth additional development, but this development should be along the lines of fitting a radial engine to it. This also goes for the Yokosuka D4Y Judy dive-bomber that has been in development since December of last year (1940). These are the two present types designed to use the engine.
The KI-61 should begin flight testing within the next month, it is a development of the KI-60 which first flew last March. We could begin design studies to incorporate a radial engine and designate it the KI-62 (Historical note: This actually occurred though much later, (design work begun Oct. 1944 when the need for a capable interceptor became paramount) and the aircraft became the KI-100. The aircraft used a 1500hp radial vs the 1500hp liquid cooled engine and the loss of this additional 728lbs enhanced performance. Using this as a basis we could get by with a less powerful radial engine with comparable performance. The KI-61 I had an 1175hp engine and weighed in at 7650lbs. The KI-61 II had a 1500 hp engine and weighed in at 8433lbs and the KI-100 a 1500hp engine at 7705lbs. This gives the KI-61 a hp/wt ratio of .1535 hp per lb. this means we could install a 1180hp radial and achieve similar performance. As more powerful radials come on line we can install them on the aircraft. Historically the KI-100 was fielded within 4 months of the need being seen for it. If we follow this route and shift to the radial engine we should be able to be producing this aircraft in a form similar, performance wise by February 1942. This aircraft can also be continually upgraded as more powerful radials become available. Initially, it would mount 2 x .50 cals in the cowling and 2 x 20mm cannon in the wings. The KI-61 also had factory installed armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.
"In 1945 the allies succeeded in destroying production of the Ha-140 engine, Kawasaki took 275 completed airframes and fitted the Mitsubishi Ha-112-II radial engine. The lashed together fighter surprised everyone by being the most formidable fighter ever produced by the Japanese. The first unit to be equipped with this fighter engaged US Navy fighters over Okinawa, destroying 14 Hellcats with no losses to themselves.")

I place the matter before the council for further discussion. If interested I will provide projected performance figures and a development tree projection for the type incorporating features the council wishes to incorporate.

 

Just for clarification, are we discussing the plan to field 3 seperate production lines for each service? (IJA-Fighter, Interecptor, FighterBomber...IJN-Fighter, Shipboard Interceptor and Short Range 'Heavy' fighter)

Can we expect any commonality in these variants? (Powerplants, Airframes)

 

Very good question Mr. Prime Minister and an area I had intended to address, but since the subject has been broached I will address it now. The problem is somewhat complex due to needing the proper engines, fielding the most capable aircraft as quickly as possible without any short term delays may require us to deploy some aircraft types in a limited standard/interim version. I would like to see us adopt the A6M series as our standard fighter IJN/IJA initially and pursue the development path I laid out earlier. The various models within this path are capable of carrying bombs and will have some utility as fighter bombers. Obviously the later models with the much increased horsepower engines will have an increased load carrying capacity. We just need to insure they have the appropriate hard points to carry the ordinance. Probably a centerline point for drop tank or large bomb and two wing mountings for lighter bombs. We have the KI-44 Tojo in the pipeline. First flight in August 1940. Service trials began in September of this year and we are looking at an introduction date of December of this year. It will provide a decent interceptor initially until newer models appear. Once it is supplanted by newer models it would be a good platform to retain in the land based ground attack/fighter bomber role. By that time we should be able to mount an increased horsepower engine and incorporate the additional armor, and increased bomb load, General (Ret.) Kourei requested. It will make a good ground attack aircraft and still retain some usefulness as a secondary interceptor. By this time we should have the KI-64 (historical KI-100) I suggested previously in service. I would like to develop a carrier based version of this aircraft for use by the IJN. I would like to see us make it a universal land based fighter aircraft across the services. (We should also be getting the N1K2 George, a very good, very capable aircraft, but one we can't discuss because first flying in December 1942 it's development would be as yet unknown and the J2M Raiden Jack. The Jack was an interceptor, but a mediocre aircraft. It first flew in March '42 so we are aware it is being developed and to remain historical will still need to spend the money, but our modifications to our more capable types should prevent us from having to make large numbers of them.) Then we have the A7M. Design work was begun in late 1940 and halted in January of this year so Mitsubishi could focus on several other types. I would like to restart R&D so when the appropriately sized engine becomes available we can start producing it.
So to answer your question. I'd like to have one cross service fighter type, but do not want to abandon research into areas where we might develop a more capable aircraft. All fighters should be equipped for use as fighter bombers as needed. We have an interceptor entering service that can fill that void until a more capable type is fielded. At that time the interceptor should be modified for the ground attack role. It should be primarily an IJA type, but be available to the IJN if they see the need for it. The interceptor role when filled by a capable type should have a carrier version developed and it should serve as a cross service interceptor type, land and carrier based. Parts commonality should be maximized where possible.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I can live with a little 'disorganisation' so long as we strive to streamline anywhere we can in production.

 

Nice emphasis, on an interesting story. I will read up on their other operational engagements.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Kawasaki Ki 100.htm

Kawasaki Ki-100 Goshiki-Sen​

​

The Japanese Army found itself faced with the prospect of 275 Ki-61-II airframes sitting around waiting for installation of their Ha-140 liquid-cooled engines. The Ha-140 engine had proven to be totally unreliable and to make matters worse, the factory manufacturing the Ha-140 had been destroyed in a B-29 raid. Since Japan desperately needed aircraft capable of intercepting the B-29's, in November of 1944 the Ministry of Munitions instructed Kawasaki to install a different powerplant in the Ki-61-II in an attempt to get as many aircraft in the air as possible.


When the Ki-100 encountered the P-51D Mustang at low or medium altitudes over Japan, it was able to meet the American fighter on more or less equal terms. The outcome of P- 51D vs Ki-100 battles was usually determined by piloting skill or by numerical advantage rather than by the relative merits of the two fighter types. However, at altitudes above 26,000 feet, the manoeuvrability of the Ki-100 began to fall off rather severely and the fighter was at a relative disadvantage in intercepting the high-flying B-29.

That is a good looking fighter.​

 

This was due primarily due to the lack of proper alloying metals for the superchargers necessary for high altitude performance. Japan had access to these metals earlier in the war, but the US submarine campaign cut into their supply and late war almost totally eliminated it. We are looking at an aggressive anti-submarine campaign and increased convoy protection. Only time and actual operations will tell if we are successful. If so we have the necessary sources of these alloying compounds, in which case we produce the proper metals for building dependable superchargers, and we will be able to field aircraft that perform as well as anything our opponents field, even at high altitudes. If not, we follow the historical path of having aircraft deficient at high altitudes, because while we have the technology, we increasingly lack the raw materials to exploit it.