Anyone interested in some intellectual exercise?

I fully and wholeheartedly endorse this.

Prime Minister.

 

Gentlemen, thank you all for your input thus far. Even when a post is not directly addressed I am reading and digesting them all and taking the suggestions and incorporating them into an overall plan, which the Council can approve, disapprove or modify. I am thrilled Admiral Takao has rejoined us, his wise counsel has surely been missed. We have been fortunate to have Admiral Karonada (Carronade) and General Kourei (TOS) consistently with us, now Takao provides the third leg to the stool, providing stability and balance. Admiral Noka is working on our ship building plan and we have General Nishio back. This gives us back our two primary ground force commanders Nishio and General Terauchi Hisaichi (steverodgers801). Mr. Prime Minister this gives me confidence that we can prevail.

 

I fully agree that a Land Based, General Purpose Fighter (LBGPF) would be ideal if it could preform equally well at any altitude, providing we can design and build such a craft. An ability to carry some Air to ground ordenance (Rockets or small bombs) would be welcome. At present I do not think we have such an airframe in our inventory, though I would support any promising development of such a type.

Since neither we or any other nation that I know of has such a design currently in production, I submit it would be wise to also develop along the lines of two seperate craft to fill the mission of a LBGPF and Interceptor.

I am prepared to accept the use by the Navy of a Carrier Based, General Purpose Fighter (CBGPF) for all Navy fighter squadrons, save Interceptor and Night Fighter. But this would result in both a direct and indirect cost increase overall for Navy Fighter Squadrons compared to their equivelent Army formations. I feel the majority of the Council must approve this measure before we proceed.

I do feel that the ability to easily transfer fighters and pilots (if we make the investment in more CVE's for Deck training) operating on a land bases to Carriers is worth the expence long term. So if we have majority approval, I will endorse this as well.

In the matter of a dedicated Fighter Bomber (FB), I must dis-agree.

In the near term, till say mid 1943, our existing Light Bombers, Ki-30, Ki-32 and Ki-28(?), will serve us well in the area of Close Air Support (CAS) for the Army. After this point we must accept that enemy forces will close the gap in both Quantity and Quality as reguards fighter design. Eventually they certainly will out pace us in production numbers and could do so in over all quality, though we have some wiggle room there.

While we may not be effecting large scale offensive operations at this time, the need for effective close air support will remain. Recall that we have some serious issuse's with respect to Artillery, Armor and Anti-Tank weapons, and while we are striving to correct this, it may not be enough.

Our current Light Bombers will be extremely vunerable after mid 1943, so a fast craft that can carry a good load of Air to Ground payload and can absorb ground fire seem a prudent investment. Its ability to defend itself or its airfields as a fighter would add a measure of multi-tasking and could revert to fighter only role when or if CAS is no longer an option.

It is possible that the LBGPF could do this task to some degree, I have doubts that one such can have the needed armor to make it very survivable doing this at a regular pace, while being good in the Air superiority role and we can not compete with the west in the matter of pilot training.

I suggest we attempt to design Both types, if the LBGPF can act as a FB as designed or with some modification, all well and good. But if not, it would be well that we did not put all our rice into one bowl.

I am pleased to hear the A6M can be modified to a Seaplane Fighter, Thank you.

Prime Minister

 

Honorable members of the council,

If I might be permitted to voice a few shabby and somewhat incomplete thoughts, primarily in order to myself learn: It seems to me that our aircraft have a few specific missions to perform. We need our aircraft to secure control of the airspace above any given battlefield, for which our various fighter types will be key. We will ultimately need to fight above both land and sea, at any altitude our enemies can attain, and often far from any facilities, so high altitude performance will be important, range will be vital, and the ability to operate from carriers will be necessary in the majority of our naval fighters. I generally agree with the above observations about air-superiority fighters, interceptors, and so forth. I will say that it might be worth building a mechanism whereby we might abandon the pontoons from our seaplane fighters at need, rather like drop tanks, since there might arise occasions where retaining the pontoons will surely result in the loss of the aircraft to faster enemy fighters, and discarding them might give our aviators a better chance to survive, albeit without the continued use of the aircraft, and might enable our aviators to extract a greater toll from our enemies for their mounts. If such a discard mechanism is practicable it would have to be a move of last resort, but it might prove valuable.

As to other missions:We will need aircraft able to provide information about enemy ship and troop movements, thus we will have a need for types with long range and observers, but possibly with very limited armament. Aircraft that can loiter, or with a heavy enough payload to carry sophisticated electronic equipment might prove invaluable at suppressing enemy submarines. We will need precision bombers that can attack either ships at sea or enemy troop concentrations. While it is unfortunate that our dive bombers probably cannot, by themselves, sink the most heavily armored enemy warships, they can certainly sink enemy merchant shipping and lighter combatants, which will be quite useful enough. Our enemies have a very limited number of heavy ships, and these are quite vulnerable to torpedo damage, thus even if our dive bombers cannot be our only airborne anti-ship weapon, they remain a useful one.

Lastly, the suppression of enemy airfields might provide a use for saturation bombing, but other methods might prove equally useful. I am inclined to believe that our long range bombers will have more need of accuracy than payload.

I submit these thoughts for your consideration and I await your advice.

Respectullly,
Admiral Noka.

Addendum regarding Naval fighter pilot training and doctrine: I fully approve of using our pilots and planes ashore as a reserve for our fleet. While it will increase the cost of our landbased aviation somewhat, I believe the additional flexibility will more than justify the cost.

 

Its my understanding that float fighters are more for attacking other recon aircraft and thus denying info as much as acquiring it. The problem I see with the drop mechanism is how does the plane land?

 

Dear Admiral Noka,

i can understand the way yof your thoughts to the pontoons, but they will have some disadvantages too. Two of them are that the aircraft will need more fuel and it reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft. Instead of this it seems to be of more value to equip the fighters, fighterbombers with a landing hook. This part is not expensive to make and it gives our aircrafts the possibility to land on carriers to get them filled up with fuel. No need of foldable wings. The only need is that our IJA pilots have to learn how to land and start from a flight deck. Maybe this is possible to do.

Sincerely

Gen. Nishio

 

Admiral Takao
Try doing that kind of "tour" in 8 days very little time to enjoy the beautiful cities between one meeting and preparing for the next.

On the subject of the "heavy" I respectfully disagree, not in absolute terms but because our circumstances are likely to make any heavy "too little too late"

T believe the H8K is good enougt to "fill the gap" between bases, for long range strikes against poorly defended targets , the G4M., or even the H6K and H8K, if we can spare them from their primary mission of naval recon, are good enough. If we had a good 4 engined design ready I would support putting it in production but as all we have is the very mediocre G5N Shinzan by the time we devolop somerthing good US production wil make it almost sure unescorted long range attacks are no longer viable, all targets will be prortected by at least a CVE and we can expect land based fighters within days of a landing.

Much better to concentrate on a highly survivable twin engined design capable of punching through heavy opposition. Our strategy requires we give the USN a bloody nose during some of their early offensives, before they overwhelm us with superior numbers ceate wear weariness in the US public for this we need lots of medium range planes, not fewer long range ones. The existing H8K and G4M are more than enough to force the enemy to spread his defences

20/20 hindshigh: a few Rabaul based squadrons of heavies would make life for the cactus airforce very difficult, but there is no way the heavies will be ready in mid/late 1942, late 1943 is is the soonest I would expect them in any numbers and by then the new fast carriers and seabees are available and make "shoestring" like high risk operations unlikely.

 

I think it is important to remember that land based aircraft are intended to support KB. We can hope that a land based group can damage an air task group, but we should not expect it, This is true at the start since the Marshalls do not have a lot of strike aircraft and we haven't had a chance to build up a air force in the S pacific yet and it will take some time to get a good enough land based force.

 

I find myself in agreement with the good ambassador.

If we need a long range 4 engine aircraft for surveillance duties in the deep Pacific could not our large Flying boats do this?

If we need a large Bombing Aircraft like the American B-17, will our bases in the Pacific be large enough to accommodate them and our current types? Surely not all our outposts could base both tactical aircraft as well as Strategic.

 

Rabaul, maybe some in new guinea and of course the Marianna's. there are islands that could hold bombers but not in great numbers

 

This is a good reason why we should refine our Naval air strategy. If we need the ability to launch Bombing strikes on Allied outposts we need to define where we can base these craft.

 

1.) First, do we all still agree to cease development of the DB-601 type engine, HA-40/Aichi Atsuta?



If so I propose we take the engineers, machinists, technicians, funding and equipment and fold it into intensified development of our radial engines. I further propose that if we obtain an agreement on technological cooperation with Germany, that we assemble a development team to travel to Germany, along with examples of our latest engine types and establish a parallel line of development there. We share research and incremental breakthroughs. The different design philosophies and expertise should result in a more rapid development of more powerful, efficient engines and help overcome any developmental stumbling blocks.

2.) I propose we require our major engine producers cease production of different Army and Navy versions of the same engine model. In most cases the differences are minor, but prevent the engines from being fully interchangeable. I feel this will streamline our production lines, allow greater flexability in allocating engines to different aircraft types, so we can more easily tailor our production to changing operational needs. It should simplify maintenance training and allow Army and Navy maintenance personnel to support each others aircraft since the airframes will be interservice.

3.) Information from the war in Europe suggests that we should look into increasing the firepower and lethality of our aircraft. Since the modifications necessary are minor and the weight increase is minimal, I propose we immediately look at up arming our first tier aircraft. These modifications should be introduced into the production lines as soon as possible. Field modification kits can be produced to upgrade aircraft already in service. I suggest we begin intensified design efforts into making our aircraft more survivable. Armor plating to protect the pilot, then self-sealing fuel tanks, then additional armor for critical areas. I suggest we plan for introducing these improvements in an incremental manner. Each time we produce an engine of the proper type with increased performance and horsepower we will experience an increase in the aircrafts performance. If we only introduce those improvements that can be offset by the increased engine performance, so as to maintain the horsepower to weight ratio, we should be able to introduce the improvements without a corresponding drop in aircraft perfomance.

 

It's not that easy, greater horsepower engines need tailored airframes to be exploited to the full, Germany is currently experiencing a big difficulty with improving the Me 109 despite the availability of greater horsepower versions of the daimler benz 12 cylinders inverted V engine. Even without thinking of the future DB 603 that is simply too large for the airframe, the 1500hp DB 605 are not fully exploited, more power is available but the airframe cannot accept a heavier armament without very bad effects on drag and wing loading. To get a high performance fighter you have to design the smallest possible airframe that will fit your requirements of firepower armour and range with the original engine (anything larger is dead weight), the downside is that when a more powerful engine becomes available, even if it has similar weight and size, adding equipment will still bring about lower performance, manouverability depends mostly on wing loading and has little to do with power to weight ratio..

We already have a great plane in the 1000 Hp range in the A6M, we should plan for a 1500 Hp designs and a 2000Hp one as we expect engines in that class to be available soon.

We probably should have two designs for each power class, one larger long ranged "offensive" type and a smaller fuel capacity "defensive" type, from the latter we could eventually specialize a pure interceptor that stresses firepower and climb thought that may need an engine/supercharger combination optimized for high altitute that may be difficult to adapt to the "general purpose" airframe. I see little use for developing a "defensive" type around a 1000Hp engine unless we can come up with a brilliant "lightweight fighter" design.

HISTORICAL NOTE: There was at least one historical top performance "1000HP class" fighter, the YAK3, but it was, like most soviet planes, not heavily armed and IIRC it relied on an engine mounted cannon while our radial designs would have to have either wing mounted armament (heavier wing) or syncronized weapons (less FP x weight). Something like it may be very good to have against carrier aviation, but we would still need a more hevily armed plane to deal with the heavy bombers. The lightweight fighter is a big temptation as it would also go a long way in redressing the industrial disadvantage but considering the chances of comming up with something that good with our radials are not high I would not make the attempt, a less than outstanding 1000HP design would be slaughtered by the allied 1944 fighter line up.

Initial production should favor the "offensive" design but as the war pogresses we should be ready to shift to the "defensive" type, carrier aviation, and possibly the China based units, will always need the "offensive" type so we will need advanced versions of it.

Below are my candidates for the roles (the 2000HP designs are of course not yet "on the radar" in 1941 but I have included them to comple the roadmap):

1000HP : A6M for the "offensive" no defensive, it will be hard to get the army to give up the Ki 43 for the zero but it's probably worth it.
1500HP: A6M8, the low wing loading design of the initial Zero will probably allow an effective ugrade and nothing better is available; for the "defensive" initially the Ki 44 or a radial version of the Ki 61 (Ki 100) if it can be developed in time, here the IJN will have to accept an army type (no SAM).
2000HP: A7M for the "offensive"; Ki 84 for the "defensive" (the N1K2J is also promising but may take too long to develop)

 

Yes sir, you are entirely correct. We are in agreement, I probably did not explain my suggestion clearly enough. I didn't go back and address our earlier discussion on IJN aircraft, where some of you concerns are addressed. What I was speaking of was incremental engine improvements leading to incremental improvements within an existing aircraft line. We can use two aircraft we have decided to make our primary types as an example, the A6M and G4M, The A6M uses the nakajima Sakae 12 cylinder radial engine. We can expect incremental increases in its performance output. Because the cylinder size will not change within the line the overall diameter of the engine itself will remain constant, weight variances will also remain minimal. Any variances cause by length change due to supercharger changes etc. will require modifications as will certain changing in ducting etc. and will require modifications to the mounting and cowling, but will not have a large impact on the airframes aerodynamics.
Weight as you properly stated does have an adverse effect due to wing loading. The effects of wing loading are minimized with increased speed, which we should get from the increased horsepower. At lower speeds higer wing loading does effect lift, maneuverability, and response, that is why in our earlier discussion I had mentioned adding KI-43 type self deploying combat flaps to the A6M when its weight reaches the point that wing loading adversely effects performance. This pre-planning will allow us to introduce improvements sooner instead of reacting to improved allied capabilities. The combat flaps, similar systems being called Fowler flaps in the west, increase wing area and thus decrease wing loading when needed. Heavier aircraft with greater wing loading and more powerful engines have greater dive speeds. We already know that our pilots can push the Type 0 to the point of wing failure, does it not make sense to go ahead and engineer in strengthened wing structure and wing skinning, so we can introduce it into an improved model when these conditions are met?
All this being said, horsepower to weight ratio has a large impact on an aircrafts performance. If we pre-engineer our existing airframes to take advantage of projected increases, we will have the airframe ready when the engine is vs waiting until an improved performance engine is available and then modifying the airframe to take advantage of the increased performance, which is our current policy.
With the G4M we have a different set of concerns, in this aircraft range and payload are more important than top speed and maneuverability. When we get the horsepower increase we will be able to carry a larger bomb load, why not go ahead and have the plans ready to modify the bomb bay to accomodate the increased payload. The more powerful engine and increased payload will increase fuel consumption, should we not go ahead and look at mounting additional fuel tanks so that range is not adversely effected? These are the types of pre-engineering I was discussing. Depending upon the overall weight increase of defensive measures, armor, and self-sealing tanks, we may need to strengthen the wing or modify it to increase its area. All I'm saying is we know we will be getting improved engines, the designers and engineers working on them can give us reasonable projections of how much of an increase we can expect. Let's spend the money in parallel to have the airframe ready to take advantage of this.

I agree. We need to pursue newer and more capable types that can accomodate the next generation engines. These engines lines have different dimensions and I was not suggest that we make attempts to modify the A6M to utilize them. I was only suggesting we get the fullest potential out of improvements within the Sakae series engines that the A6M uses. We need to allocate as many resources as possible into aircraft and engine R&D. We do not know which of these designs will reach the point where they can or should be introduced into large scale production. Even with types that we spend development dollars on that do not eventually prove to be successful types, we still make technological advances and gain knowledge that can be incorporated into types we do opt to produce. I do not support placing into production all the aircraft we develop. If we are to maximize our industrial aircraft output we must choose which types to produce, and each time we have a new type, I will bring it before the council and you gentlemen can decide to phase out the older type and switch over to the newer one.

Historical note: The KI-61 was a very capable fighter, despite a poor readiness rate due to the unreliable HA-40 type engine. The KI-60 was never fielded, but lessons learned from its development were used in development of the KI-61 so it wasn't wasted effort.
"Kawasaki staged a fly-off between two Ki-61 prototypes and the Ki-43-I, a pre-production Ki-44-I, a LaGG-3 (flown to Manchuria by a defector), a Bf 109E-3, and a captured P-40E Warhawk. The Ki-61 proved the fastest of all the aircraft and was inferior only to the Ki-43 in manoeuvrability."

Currently we have the KI-61 nearing the flight testing stage, an airframe that shows great promise. Since we are discontinuing the 1500 hp HA-40 engine, and I have been informed that we will have a 1500hp version of the HA-33 Mitsubishi Kinsei engine available in early 1942, we go ahead and adapt the airframe for this engine. We can mount the 1280 hp version of the HA-33 for testing and development until the 1500hp version is ready. We can use NACA cowling to reduce aerodynamic drag and ejector stacks to provide additional thrust.
Historical note: This actually took place when the HA-40 engine plants were destroyed by B-29's on 19 January 1945 and Japan decided to fit radial engines to already produced KI-61 airframes, resulting in the KI-100. The modification was completed and the first example was flying by Feb 1st, 1945, so in a two week period the change was accomplished. The KI-100 was one of the best Japanese fighter/interceptors of the war.
The Army is currently in pre-production testing, since September, of a dedicated interceptor type, the KI-44. I suggest we continue testing and if it looks promising start production. We can look into an interceptor version of the modified KI-61 to replace the KI-44 and we have a number of twin engined fighters that can be evaluated also, but the KI-44 should fill the interceptor role until we can field something better.

Agreed, the A6M has the carrier capability and has more potential for up-arming. The KI-43 is a very capable aircraft. I would swap production gradually, one or two factories at a time over to the A6M from the KI-43 so we don't have production gap. We can use the KI-43's we end up with in inventory for advanced fighter training because of its favorable handling characteristics and for second line fighters when enough of our main type becomes available. I would build a new production facility for the KI-43 in China and transfer the machinery and dies there. We could maintain limited production and retain it as our allied partner standard type, for arming China and Korea.

I agree that we should continue development of the A6M series. The A6M8 would be the end result of my earlier suggestion for incremental increases based upon incremental engine improvements. The historical A6M8 mounted the Kinsei HA-33 (HA-112 which was the Army designation for the similar engine. This is what I was referring to earlier in my suggestions on standardized engines across the services.) I mentioned earlier the fitting of the HA-33 to the KI-61.
Where I do desire to reduce aircraft types, and initially I'd prefer to use the A6M series to equip both carrier and land based fighter squadrons, I have no problem splitting off into seperate carrier and land based types when a better option becomes available. If the KI-61 mod proves successful, I think we will have reached that status and I would favor dropping A6M usage for most land based squadrons for the KI-61. The A6M series would be retained for those island based fighter squadrons that would be rotating through the carriers for deployment.

Agreed, that is how I'd like to proceed.

This is where I (well actually we) really need your help. The 2000hp Homare series was plagued by reliability problems as was the preceeding Mamoru series. If you can negotiate a deal with the Germans as I suggested earlier, we may find an earlier solution to these problems, thus fielding the 2000hp series engines earlier.
Alternately, we have German/Japanese synthetic fuel plants. If you can press Germany for continued technical support in this area, I'll push the council for continued and intensified development of this technology. Synthetic fuel is favorable for production of increased octane aviation fuels. If we can develop a reliable source for higher octane synthetic aviation fuels, we can get increased performance from our engines. They can be tuned differently, use a higher subercharger boost and develop more horsepower. I'm still researching the subject so I can determine what octane fuel we could reasonably produce and what type of horsepower increase we could expect with fuels in different octane ranges. It does look promising though based upon performance figures from post war US testing of Japanese aircraft using high octane US fuels. If we could get say 1600hp out of an engine rated at 1280hp using 87 octane fuel we could field much more capable types at a much earlier date. If we could get 1900hp out of the 1500hp Kinsei by using high octane fuels we souldn't be restrained by the Homare's development and when we did get the Homare it would be that much more capable still.

 

I favor setting aside the DB-601 until such time as we have enough spare capacity to persue its further development.

As to the rest working to gradually improve current aircraft until new designs become available seem prudent to someone not well versed in the technology of aircraft.

 

Item # 4.) on my suggestion list would be standardization of our aircraft weapons. At present we have six different aircraft machine guns in the 7.7mm-7.92mm category three army, three navy. In the 12.7 to 13.2mm category, all basically .51 caliber, we have three. In the 20mm category, six and we've got or soon will have two in the 30mm category. Personally I would get away from the 7.7-7.92mm range because they lack the lethality to deal effectively with most modern aircraft. My preferred weapon in the .51 caliber range would be the Army's HO-103, 12.7mm, disentegrating link, belt fed, capable of both fixed or flex mounting. It is a reliable weapon, (based upon the US browning) and has good performance stats. In the 20mm range I'd go with the IJA's HO-5, capable of either fixed or flex mounting, belt fed, an upscaled version of the HO-103, and good performance stats.
I'd like to see all our fighter and bomber aircraft upgrade to a weapons fit made up of .51 caliber and 20mm weapons. Our interceptor and ground attack aircraft should be fitted with a combination to include a 30mm to handle allied heavy bombers and in the case of the ground attack types, more lethality when attacking more heavily fortified ground targets or armored vehicles.

Gentlemen, your thoughts.

 

To be honest I thought we had agreement on this matter, but in any event I support any effort to standardize offensive and defensive weaponry on IJA/IJN aircraft to the greatest degree feasable.

 

We had sir, but a number of the Council members that are at our present meeting were absent during that time period. I am attempting to get our past decisions on general policies and what we had decided on IJN aircraft, put it back in front of the members in case there are any dissenting opinions. I would rather a valid argument against a basic policy be raised now, rather than after I have made a proposal for a development path that incorporates a flawed policy.

 

In the fighter category we currently have six operational models.

A5M4 Claude- Production stopped 1940. I do not recommend we restart production on this type, while still capable against current allied types we need to replace this aircraft in operational units, as soon as practical. The excess aircraft of this type should be consolidated into IJN carrier training squadrons. Replacement A6M. Engine Nakajima Kotobuki 41

KI-27 NATE- This aircraft is still in production at the Mansyu Factory in Harbin, Manchuko. We should cease all production immediately and convert over to the A6M series. Existing aircraft will initially be replaced by the KI-43. Remaining aircraft will be consolidated into IJA basic fighter training squadrons. Replacement KI-43 Engine Nakajima HA-1

A6M2 ZERO- Production started July 1940. Carrier capable Navy fighter. This aircraft is superior to all current allied types. This is the fighter I recommend we adopt as our initial inter-service fighter. Production facilities for the KI-43 will be converted on a gradual basis to production of this series type, the first model being the A6M2 (UA) (up armed). This will be accomplished as rapidly as possible without creating aircraft shortages. Engine Nakajima Sakae HA-35

KI-43 IA OSCAR- Initial production model of KI-43 series, starting April, 1941. Armed with two cowl mounted Type 97, 7.7mm machine guns. Currently in production. Replacement A6M2 (UA) Engine Nakajima HA-25 (IJA version of the Navy's HA-35 Sakae)

KI-43 IB OSCAR- Second production version of KI-43 series. Armed with one cowl mounted Type 97, 7.7mm machine gun and one cowl mounted 12.7mm HO-103 machine gun. Currently in production. Replacement A6M2 (UA) Engine Nakajima HA-25 (IJA version of the Navy's HA-35 Sakae)

KI-43 IC OSCAR- Third production version of KI-43 series. Armed with two cowl mounted 12.7mm HO-103 machine guns. Currently in production. Replacement A6M2 (UA) Engine Nakajima HA-25 (IJA version of the Navy's HA-35 Sakae)

Note: As I earlier stated, while the Army and Navy versions of certain engine lines are basically the same model, the engines are not interchangeable due to mounting points, ducting, etc.

I favor shutting down the majority of KI-43 production in favor of the A6M series. Production would be cut back gradually to prevent aircraft shortages as factories are swapped over. Some limited production capability would be retained in China for spare parts and arming of allied air force squadrons.
KI-43 IIA- Proposed follow on version for the KI-43 series. It would be modified to accept the HA-35 Sakae engine (minor).
KI-43 II (UA)- Proposed follow on version for KI-43 series when next incremental horsepower increase for the HA-35 line occurs. Strengthened wing structure, strengthened wing skinning (occurred in later historical KI-43 II models) , addition of two wing mounted HO-5 20mm cannon (occurred in later KI-43 III models).
KI-43 IIIA- Proposed follow on model when sufficient horsepower increase available. Armored canopy glass, cockpit armor, self-sealing tanks.
KI-43 IIIB- Proposed follow on model when sufficient horsepower increase available. Additional wing strengthening and hardpoints for carrying ordinance.

KI-61- Follow on R&D model for use as a land based fighter. HA-40 engine to be replaced by a 1,280 (Mod 51) or 1300hp (Mod 54) Kinsei HA-33 engine for testing. This aircraft is scheduled to begin flight testing in two months, December 1941. We can adapt the airframe during this time frame to accept the radial engine (actually done in 14 days in 1945). This should allow testing to proceed without delay. When our 1560hp version of the engine becomes available to provide for designed horsepower (though at a much reduced weight) we should be able to field as our primary, inter-service land based fighter. Projected availability date, early 1942.

 

If I follow your proposal correctly, you suggest that we slowly phase out the Ki-43 in Army service in favor of the A6M2(UA) until the Ki-61 airframe is ready for introduction to be used in Army service?