Unbuilt Japanese Aircraft Carriers

Well obviously it is from a russian book, but I did not found from which one
 
Unryu class air group development over time. See Warship 2010 and Hans Lengerer's article "Katsuragi and the failure of mass production of medium sized aircraft carriers".

As first designed (reserve aircraft figures in brackets, which were usually carried broken down IIRC)
12 (+3) Zero fighters
27 (+3) Val DB
18 (+2) Kate TB
Total 57 (+8) 11 of which were to be in a permanent deck park

As finally designed
18 (+2) Reppu (Sam) fighters
27 (+0) Suisei (Judy) DB
6 (+0) Saiun (Myrt) recce aircraft
Total 51 (+2) of which the Myrt were to be on the flight deck.

Planned temporary air group on completion (but never carried) pending arrival of Sam & Myrt.
27 (+0) Zero fighters
9 (+0) Judy DB
3 (+0) Judy recce version
9 (+0) Tenzan (Jill) TB
Total 48 (+0)

So the proposed air group of 70 in that Russian diagram is significantly beyond what was being proposed by the IJN for the class.

The other thing that strikes as immediately wrong in that first diagram, is the very orderly way in which the aircraft on the hangar deck are arranged. Any other IJN hangar deck layouts I've seen have aircraft largely arranged in all sorts of interwoven ways to maximise capacity.

Also, IIRC the Aichi B7A Ryusei (Grace) was never intended to operate from the IJN small / medium sized carriers. So by 1944 that would have meant the Shokakus, Taiho and the never built modified Taihos. Too large / heavy to operate from an Unryu.
 
Last edited:
EwenS said:
Unryu class air group development over time. See Warship 2010 and Hans Lengerer's article "Katsuragi and the failure of mass production of medium sized aircraft carriers".

As first designed (reserve aircraft figures in brackets, which were usually carried broken down IIRC)
12 (+3) Zero fighters
27 (+3) Val DB
18 (+2) Kate TB
Total 57 (+8) 11 of which were to be in a permanent deck park

As finally designed
18 (+2) Reppu (Sam) fighters
27 (+0) Suisei (Judy) DB
6 (+0) Saiun (Myrt) recce aircraft
Total 51 (+2) of which the Myrt were to be on the flight deck.

Planned temporary air group on completion (but never carried) pending arrival of Sam & Myrt.
27 (+0) Zero fighters
9 (+0) Judy DB
3 (+0) Judy recce version
9 (+0) Tenzan (Jill) TB
Total 48 (+0)

So the proposed air group of 70 in that Russian diagram is significantly beyond what was being proposed by the IJN for the class.

The other thing that strikes as immediately wrong in that first diagram, is the very orderly way in which the aircraft on the hangar deck are arranged. Any other IJN hangar deck layouts I've seen have aircraft largely arranged in all sorts of interwoven ways to maximise capacity.

Also, IIRC the Aichi B7A Ryusei (Grace) was never intended to operate from the IJN small / medium sized carriers. So by 1944 that would have meant the Shokakus, Taiho and the never built modified Taihos. Too large / heavy to operate from an Unryu.
Click to expand...
Great info, i do recall though that somewhere on j-aircraft there was a list of proposed future airgroups from 1942 for carriers including the CVLs made of B7A and Zeros, presumably at the time IJN expecting A7M to be late. I don't have the numbers handy though.

Did any of the Unryus carry an airgroup in 1944? There are some strange numbers for Unryu herself on Navypedia, there could be airgroups or just ferried planes?




YearFightersdiving bombersrecon planesASW planes
8/1944 Unryu14 A6M221 D4Y120 D4Y1C---
10.1944 Unryu56 A6M5------4 Ki.76
 
None ever carried an operational air group so far as I can tell. Seems at least Unryu & Amagi may have been used for deck landing training of units from shore bases. All were used as aircraft transports but A & K dont appear to have left the Inland Sea.


TROM for each can be found here.

Following the Battle off Cape Engano on 25th Oct 1944, IJN carrier forces were reorganised. About the only carrier air group still in existence was the 601st intended to operate from the reorganised Carrier Division 1 from 15 Nov. That comprised all the remaining carriers (Junyo, Ryuho, Amagi, Unryu, Shinano & Katsuragi). At that point the 601st was supposed to have 24 fighters, 12 carrier bombers & 12 carrier attack planes, with the majority of the air crew straight from flight school. This was reinforced by survivors from the Philippines campaign in Dec 1944 / Jan 1945. In Feb 1945 the surviving carriers (Unryu & Shinano having been sunk) were laid up and the 601st reallocated to the shore based 3rd Air Fleet, expanded and re-equipped. It then fought through to the end of the WW2.
 
As far as I know, due to dissatisfaction with the performance of the hybrid warship, there were still discussions about two modification plans for Oyodo during the design phase:
1. Continue to expand the hull so that the hybrid warship could be equipped with 2-6 more 155mm naval guns;
2. Completely convert it into an aircraft carrier, abandoning those six 155mm naval guns.
There is currently not enough information on these two types of discussions, because researcher Takao Ishibashi only briefly mentioned them.
However, it should be relatively easy to imagine the Oyodo in an aircraft carrier state, after all, we already have concept images of hybrid warships.It might be more difficult to imagine a larger hybrid warship; for example, we are not sure how those main gun turrets would be arranged.
Perhaps it will imitate Mogami (three turrets) or the Tone (four turrets)?
 
Last edited:
EwenS said:
Unryu class air group development over time. See Warship 2010 and Hans Lengerer's article "Katsuragi and the failure of mass production of medium sized aircraft carriers".

As first designed (reserve aircraft figures in brackets, which were usually carried broken down IIRC)
12 (+3) Zero fighters
27 (+3) Val DB
18 (+2) Kate TB
Total 57 (+8) 11 of which were to be in a permanent deck park
Click to expand...
That would allow for keeping at least 1 flight of Zeroes flying for CAP. (I'm assuming the deck park would be mostly the Zeroes.)


EwenS said:
As finally designed
18 (+2) Reppu (Sam) fighters
27 (+0) Suisei (Judy) DB
6 (+0) Saiun (Myrt) recce aircraft
Total 51 (+2) of which the Myrt were to be on the flight deck.
Click to expand...
Interesting choice, since the Japanese didn't typically fly recon planes off their carriers.


EwenS said:
Planned temporary air group on completion (but never carried) pending arrival of Sam & Myrt.
27 (+0) Zero fighters
9 (+0) Judy DB
3 (+0) Judy recce version
9 (+0) Tenzan (Jill) TB
Total 48 (+0)
Click to expand...
Based on the "as designed" Wing, that would likely allow the entire wing to stay in the Hangar. But I still think they'd have a few Zeroes and Judy Recons on the flight deck for CAP and scouting.
 
Supplementing a few interesting points I just remembered:
1. The Oyodo-class aircraft carrier/hybrid warship plans to equip catapults, which are extremely rare on Japanese aircraft carriers.
2. In various plans, whether it is an aircraft carrier or a hybrid warship, the hangar deck height is 8 meters and there is only one leve
AMAYA said:
As far as I know, due to dissatisfaction with the performance of the hybrid warship, there were still discussions about two modification plans for Oyodo during the design phase:
1. Continue to expand the hull so that the hybrid warship could be equipped with 2-6 more 155mm naval guns;
2. Completely convert it into an aircraft carrier, abandoning those six 155mm naval guns.
There is currently not enough information on these two types of discussions, because researcher Takao Ishibashi only briefly mentioned them.
However, it should be relatively easy to imagine the Oyodo in an aircraft carrier state, after all, we already have concept images of hybrid warships.It might be more difficult to imagine a larger hybrid warship; for example, we are not sure how those main gun turrets would be arranged.
Perhaps it will imitate Mogami (three turrets) or the Tone (four turrets)?
Click to expand...

l.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom