IJNAS fighter to counter 1945’s FAA and USN?

[Admiral Beez]

In 1945 the FAA introduced the Hawker Sea Fury, the USN the Grumman F8F Bearcat. What did the Japanese have planned?

As the replacement of the pre-war A6M, the Mitsubishi A7M Reppū was more a generational contemporary to the Firefly, Corsair and Hellcat. Could the A7M have mixed it up with the Sea Fury or Bearcat? Had war not come, what were the long term ideas for IJNAS fighter to replace the A6M and A7M? Or did the IJN not plan this far out? Japan certainly planned on more carriers to enter service in the mid-1940s, with five G-15 class (modified Taiho) planned, so the IJNs might have given some thought to future CAG.

Perhaps something akin to a naval equal in performance to the Nakajima Ki-84 or Ki-116.

 

[fubar57]

Isn't this a What-if?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Isn't this a What-if?

Looks What if to me

No, not what if, but what was. I'm asking the forum members if they're aware of what Japan had planned for fighters on its planned future carriers likely to enter service, AIUI in 1945-46. It's a question of history, not hypotheticals. Did IJNAS fighter development stop hard with their 1940 request for the A7M?

 

[fubar57]

Could the A7M have mixed it up with the Sea Fury or Bearcat? Had war not come, what were the long term ideas for IJNAS fighter to replace the A6M and A7M? Or did the IJN not plan this far out?

Looks What if to me

 

[varsity07840]

It's interesting to note that the only "second generation" fighters ( J2M, and N1K-J) produced for the IJN that entered service were strictly land based. If the war had continued, the A7M would have been opposed by the F4U-4, P-47N, P-51H, F7F, F8F and the P-80 , all of which rendered the A7M obsolete from the start.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's interesting to note that the only "second generation" fighters ( J2M, and N1K-J) produced for the IJN that entered service were strictly land based.

That's what's on my mind. The IJN maintained a pipeline of successive shipboard strike designs, culminating in the Aichi B7A and Yokosuka D4Y, with further advancement of these two in the works. But no fighter succession planning other than the A7M?

 

[varsity07840]

That's what's on my mind. The IJN maintained a pipeline of successive shipboard strike designs, culminating in the Aichi B7A and Yokosuka D4Y, with further advancement of these two in the works. But no fighter succession planning other than the A7M?

The A7M went through a rather protracted development phase during which it lagged behind US progressive designs. The Japanese lagged behind US technology and had limited access to strategic materials that were necessary for producing components such as turbochargers, even though they had captured American examples from B-17s. I'm purely speculating but perhaps there was not the sense of urgency that should have prevailed regarding a replacement for the A6M because of its successes into mid 1942. The Japanese war plan counted on a negotiated peace with the US after over running outposts in the Pacific and a theoretical destruction of the Pacific Fleet. A protracted war that allowed the US to gear up production of advanced weapons was their downfall.

 

[Thos9]

In 1945 the FAA introduced the Hawker Sea Fury, the USN the Grumman F8F Bearcat. What did the Japanese have planned?

A shipboard version of the Kawanishi Shiden-Kai, the N1K4-A, was built and tested. But before production could begin this version was abandoned with the complete destruction of Japan's carrier forces.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A shipboard version of the Kawanishi Shiden-Kai, the N1K4-A, was built and tested. But before production could begin this version was abandoned with the complete destruction of Japan's carrier forces.

Nice. If a Kawanishi N1K carrier variant was tested, perhaps their J6K would have been in the cards. I'd love to know what the IJN had planned.

 

[Kevin J]

Nice. If a Kawanishi N1K carrier variant was tested, perhaps their J6K would have been in the cards. I'd love to know what the IJN had planned.

Sea Fury went operational in 1947. Seafire F. XV missed the war. Seafire FIII/LIII/FRIII was match for A6M5, perhaps not A6M8 though, but then it never entered service and we would have had the Seafire F. XV which would have outclassed it.

 

[nuuumannn]

If a Kawanishi N1K carrier variant was tested, perhaps their J6K would have been in the cards.

The J6K Jinpu was not carrier based; it was a land based naval fighter and reached mock-up stage only before the war's end; even then the mock-up was based on the J3K1, which only existed as a mock-up. It was Kawanishi Type 17-Shi Land Base Fighter, while the J6K was Kawanishi 18-Shi Land Base Fighter, named Jinpu. The former was cancelled at the beginning of 1943 because they couldn't get the supercharger to work. The Jinpu was cancelled in July 1944; it was to have derivatives of the same engine as the A7M Reppu, the Nakajima MK9 Homare, but supercharged.

The N1K-3 and N1K-4 Shiden-Kais that went down aboard the Shinano were carrier fighters modified with only a tail hook, but no wing folds - they were only intended as interims until the A7M Reppu and derivatives was ready, which was what the IJN was hinging its carrier fighter future on; that and continuing development of the A6M.

As for the Reppu, yes, delays dogged the project, largely because of IJN interference in the choice of engine and technical details, also it wanted Mitsubishi to concentrate resources on the A6M and G4M and addressing J2M Raiden issues, which all stifled its development. The big earthquake on 7 December 1944 damaged the factory where it was being developed, destroying drawings and manufacturing jigs, which effectively ended production before it had really begun. The promising and good looking Ki-83 heavy fighter production and development was also affected by the quake. A design derivative of the A7M3, the Type 20-Shi Carrier Fighter was proposed, to be jointly developed by Mitsubishi and Nakajima but nothing came of it before the end of the war (The internet has designated this the A8M Toppu, but that is a red herring - the 20-Shi fighter was based on the A7M3).

If the war had continued, the A7M would have been opposed by the F4U-4, P-47N, P-51H, F7F, F8F and the P-80 , all of which rendered the A7M obsolete from the start.

The IJN was incredibly short sighted with regards to manufacture and design of new aircraft to meet the US threat. Its entire strategy appears to have been knee-jerk, producing designs to meet threats as they emerged, rather than examining potential future threats and planning long term. There was the lure of jet power, notably the Nakajima Kikka, which first flew on 7 August 1945, the day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, although the Kikka was ostensibly land based (although its wings outboard of the engine nacelles could fold, there was no hook or specialised gear for carrier use).

It was designed purely as a fighter powered by the new powerplant, from which information came from the Germans, rather than a long term strategy to develop a next generation fighter, despite interim work that had been done in japan on gas turbine engines. It's principal role was as a land based interceptor for countering B-29s; later versions were going to be fitted with heavy cannon. Production of a jet based on the Me 262 was considered in Japan, the Nakajima Ki-201 for the army, but no work was done in terms of hardware.

 

[The Basket]

The ability to fly off a carrier is not really much in 1945 for the IJN.

Events have taken over and that ship has sailed.

So land based use is perfectly fine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The J6K Jinpu was not carrier based; it was a land based naval fighter and reached mock-up stage only before the war's end; even then the mock-up was based on the J3K1, which only existed as a mock-up.

Yes, but my query is what did the IJNAF plan for its carriers that would have entered service in the mid-1940s? I gave the example of the J6K Jinpu to show that Japan had highly advanced types planned for land based aircraft, so perhaps they had equally advanced types planned for the carriers that would have entered service in 1944-45 had war not slowed them down. Surely they didn't just stop with the A7M but were thinking something needs to succeed it.

 

[nuuumannn]

Yes, but my query is what did the IJNAF plan for its carriers that would have entered service in the mid-1940s?

And I answered that...

they were only intended as interims until the A7M Reppu and derivatives was ready, which was what the IJN was hinging its carrier fighter future on; that and continuing development of the A6M.

As I mentioned, the IJN seemed to place priority on developing land based aircraft once its carrier force had been reduced following Midway and the Coral Sea. That there was a definite shortage of aircraft carrying platforms led to the likes of the Hyuga and Ise hybrid carrier conversions, but this again doesn't disguise the fact that very little planning was put into developing a future carrier fighter beyond the 17-Shi spec that led to the A7M, which in 1943 it wasn't quite known that it would suffer delays as much as it did, although the IJN was the primary cause of these.

 

[GrauGeist]

There was a shift within the IJN, as many of it's fighters mid-war were becoming land based, like the N1K amd J2M types.

 

[The Basket]

IJN had land based aircraft. Its remit was wide for a navy.

 

[nuuumannn]

A wee bit more info that might be of interest. In short, on 1 May 1945, the IJN held a meeting with aircraft firms contracted to work for it and discussed its next generation high altitude fighter. This was the Ko Fighter. Four proposals were put forward, these were a modified A7M, a modified N1K2 Shiden-Kai, a carrier capable J6M or an entirely new design. The carrier-capable J6M was quashed during the meeting and two courses of action were decided on; what was named Decisive Battle Fighter (English translation, I guess), which was to be a re-engined A7M or N1K2, followed by the Next Generation Fighter, which was to be a new design altogether.

The A7M based design was selected. This was to be the Type 20-Shi Carrier Fighter I mentioned in a previous post, as decided in a meeting on 23 May 1945, although according to Masatake Okuyama's book Zero Fighter the term Next Fighter was officially used to describe this aircraft. The name Rifuku was associated with this project.

This information comes courtesy of our friends at the Secret Projects forum, in particular Japanese forum member Blackkite.