Exploring another angle on IJN/IJNAF. Would they have been better off instead of building the rikkos, to use the same resources for conventional single engine carrier aircraft, like the US and UK did? (i know about late or postwar US and UK twin-engine piston carrier aircraft, but it's outside the period i want to explore)
OTL they build something like 1000 G3M, 2500 G4M and 1100 P1Y, so about 4600. Assuming for a moment, taking the engine number as a base, that they build 2 kanko or kanbaku (B5N, D3A, D4Y, B6N, B7A etc.) for every rikko, they could have built over 9,000 of these.
On one hand without the rikkos they won't have the long range land-based strike capability, and useful scouting platform to supplement the likes of H6K/H8K, on the other hand the rikkos were massacred whenever encountering strong resistance. Their most notable success is the siking of PoW and Repulse, and a few other lesser ships later on, like Chicago, and i guess useful contributions early in the war such as bombing Phillipines or Wake and other objectives.
On the other hand, having 9,000 extra kanko and kanbaku, or a combination of kanko, kanbaku and kansen, means the carriers are kept filled to capacity with planes and pilots, and not only the CVs and CVLs but the CVEs too. It also means they will be the primary, and only long range strike assets. They might put more emphasis on enlarging the carrier fleet within their means (i am aware of the limitations of the japanese shipbuilding industry), like additional conversions such as the Kamakura-Marus, or Mizuho or Nisshin. There will still be land-based groups, but with just single-engine planes, so they will have to put emphasis on building airfields closer to the objective (about 300 nm at most) where practicable.
PS: Not quite a rikko, but i'll add the J1N here too, imo 900 plus Zeros are far more useful than the about 470 Gekkos.
OTL they build something like 1000 G3M, 2500 G4M and 1100 P1Y, so about 4600. Assuming for a moment, taking the engine number as a base, that they build 2 kanko or kanbaku (B5N, D3A, D4Y, B6N, B7A etc.) for every rikko, they could have built over 9,000 of these.
On one hand without the rikkos they won't have the long range land-based strike capability, and useful scouting platform to supplement the likes of H6K/H8K, on the other hand the rikkos were massacred whenever encountering strong resistance. Their most notable success is the siking of PoW and Repulse, and a few other lesser ships later on, like Chicago, and i guess useful contributions early in the war such as bombing Phillipines or Wake and other objectives.
On the other hand, having 9,000 extra kanko and kanbaku, or a combination of kanko, kanbaku and kansen, means the carriers are kept filled to capacity with planes and pilots, and not only the CVs and CVLs but the CVEs too. It also means they will be the primary, and only long range strike assets. They might put more emphasis on enlarging the carrier fleet within their means (i am aware of the limitations of the japanese shipbuilding industry), like additional conversions such as the Kamakura-Marus, or Mizuho or Nisshin. There will still be land-based groups, but with just single-engine planes, so they will have to put emphasis on building airfields closer to the objective (about 300 nm at most) where practicable.
PS: Not quite a rikko, but i'll add the J1N here too, imo 900 plus Zeros are far more useful than the about 470 Gekkos.