@Pax: Sorry for the delay. Busier than expected. Had to rush this but, oh well.
--------------------------
I. Introduction
Given the problematic nature of past air development efforts and the dysfunctional relationship of the army and navy services, I was tasked in secret with conducting an analysis of future aircraft research and development at the request of His Imperial Majesty and the Defense Committee of the Imperial Diet. In taking on this request, I was given three primary objectives: 1) to identify primary air missions and the aircraft specifications needed to fulfill them throughout the course of the war; 2) to highlight the areas in our air forces at risk of obsolescence and in need of immediate replacement; and 3) to achieve economy of effort, resource, and purpose. An imperative underlying all of this was the need to present an unbiased report without favoritism for either the army or navy air services.
Given my age and background, a specific knowledge of the technical aspects of aircraft development was lacking and thus I was aided in my efforts by the honorable Lieutenant Colonel Kobayashi Haruki of the Tachikawa Army Air Arsenal and the honorable Captain Urashima Hikaru of IJN Aviation Bureau Technical Department. I found both to be informative and cooperative, displaying none of the counterproductive tendencies of their fellow servicemen. I am happy with our collaboration and believe our efforts will have benefited both services immensely.
II. Format
The report is divided as follows:
1) The anticipated aircraft missions for both services
2) A mission-by-mission analysis of current aircraft, future anticipated needs, and recommendations for future development
3) An analysis of the recommendations made and the resulting economic synergies created.
III. Anticipated Air Missions
We have identified nine primary missions which we see as being conducted by our air forces. Much of this is already known and has been borne out so far by the early war effort both in China and against the Western powers. These are:
1. Air superiority and general air defense
2. Night air defense
3. Level bombing and ground attack
4. Land and sea-based torpedo bombing
5. Land and sea-based dive bombing
6. Reconnaissance
7. Naval patrol
8. Anti-submarine warfare
9. Air transport
Additionally, the hybrid role of the fighter-bomber was identified, but will not be covered in this report. This is for two reasons. First, given our need to achieve economic results in the primary missions identified above, it does not make logical sense to focus on a dedicated fighter-bomber that performs poorly in either mission relative to its task oriented cousins. Second, our air-superiority fighters already have bomber functionality, albeit with a smaller payload. Thus, it makes sense to ignore this role and focus instead on superior dedicated fighters and tactical bombers.
IV. Anticipated Air Missions
1. Air Superiority and Air Defense
A. Current Fighter Analysis
Fighter aircraft design in both the army and navy has historically focused on the utilization of lightweight materials in construction and the general sacrifice of armor and durability to achieve extreme maneuverability. Hence, the planes employed by our front-line fighter pilots today tend to be excellent, but brittle dogfighters. At present the models used today are as follows:
Nakajima Ki-27: Introduced in 1937, the Nakajima Ki-27 has achieved a venerable reputation in the early air battles over China and remains a highly maneuverable fighter with decent climb and altitude potential. Nonetheless, low speed and a small range due to its utilization of the older Nakajima Kotobuki, as well as a generally weak armament, make this plane obsolete for the air battles of 1941; and although it has technically been succeeded as the main army fighter by later models, large numbers remain in use and need to be replaced as soon as possible.
Nakajima Ki-43: The successor to the Ki-27 and current general fighter of the army air force, this plane improves upon its predecessor by maintaining high maneuverability, climb, and altitude while achieving greater speed and range. However, it suffers from the same weak armament and a lack of armor.
Mitsubishi A6M2: The mainstay of the navy in use on both its carriers and ground-based fighter wings, the A6M2 remains highly maneuverable like its army counterparts while achieving a higher speed. However, its real value lies in its far superior armament, allowing it to be much more lethal than the current army models. It’s only drawback, like all military fighters in service, is a lack of armor and durability.
With the above in mind, while formulating recommendations going forward, we must also view the style of aircraft prevalent among our enemy and considerations for how it will develop going forward. The fighters of our enemy in all their variant models displays a few common trends. First, they are lethal and durable, sporting decent armament while displaying an ability to take damage beyond that of our own fighters. Second, however, they tend to have lower rates of climb while generally being less maneuverable.
Given the technological and industrial advantages the Western powers enjoy over us, we can only assume that the positive qualities of their aircraft will continue to improve while their negative qualities are slowly rectified. We must anticipate this. In a war of attrition, Japan will need to make her fighters more lethal and durable while retaining maneuverability. We should focus on the existing development programs that are heading in this direction.
B. Recommendations
Our recommendations are as follows:
1) Immediately seek a replacement for current army models by speeding up research and production of the
Nakajima Ki-44 interceptor.
2) Continue to develop the A6M variant with the goal of improving armor and durability. This might incorporate switching to a different engine, such as the
Mitsubishi Ha-33.
3) Put resources into the long-term development of the promising
Nakajima Ki-84 and the evolution of the promising
Kawasaki Ki-61.
2. Night Air Defense
A. Analysis of Need
There are currently no dedicated night fighting models in service.
The Western powers have shown early in the war a propensity to engage in night attack against port and airfield targets. Currently, these attacks are conducted by smaller bomber aircraft with little effect, but the potential remains there. If the enemy discovers a means of effectively engaging in mass night attacks against our forces, we will be caught defenseless without a dedicated night-fighting plane. This is especially important to consider given the American B17 “Fortress” bomber.
However, current research towards producing such a fighter remains unsatisfactory. The only proposed suggestion of taking the Nakajima J1N1 reconnaissance aircraft and fitting it with upwards facing 20 mm cannons is a temporary solution brought about out of necessity and lack of other options. A more suitable night-fighter built solely with such a role in mind is a longer-term development project.
B. Recommendations
Our recommendations are as follows:
1) Only if needed, invest in the
Nakajima J1N1 as an early effort to combat enemy night attack
2) Immediately invest in a longer term, dedicated option with higher firepower; be mindful of potential synergies in engine-type with other fighters.
