Czcibor said:
In case of enemy trying to shoot such balloons, there would be a attempt to send them in excessive amount. Arm them? As default policy not. But if enemy starts ignoring them and fly nearby - arm a few out of hundred of them.
If you put in the resources necessary to mass-produce these balloons, along with the resources to make sure that most of them can be armed if necessary, then you've taken away a substantial amount of your already limited resources from the rest of your military.
I also think you're seriously overestimating how effective these balloons will be. They're not fast. So getting them where they need to be is going to take a lot of time. If they fly at high altitude, which they would have to do in order to avoid man-portable AA missiles and AA artillery (flak guns and the like) then they need long-range weaponry, which is expensive to manufacture and tends to weigh in on the heavy side, limiting the amount of armament it can hold. The combination of very slow speed and limited armament makes them a poor-quality weapon system. One that is MUCH more expensive than the anti-air missile used to take it out. (cost of balloon+electronics+multiple missiles/bombs > cost of single missile)
In addition, you seem to be stuck in this idea of having weapons systems and vehicles that are cheaper than the enemies own weapons used to take them out. This is, in my opinion, a
very faulty idea at its core. For one, even if it's true, it's only going to matter for a protracted engagement. And by protracted I mean one lasting on the order of
years. It has to last long enough to exhaust the enemy of his current stockpile of weapons and run his economy into the ground. That takes a LOT of time. Your own economy also needs to be able to sustain the production of these types of vehicles and weapons and your military needs to be able to soak huge losses and still not buckle, as the equipment is going to be destroyed in large numbers. It also hinges on the assumption that an enemy hasn't just made huge stockpiles of weapons and equipment themselves. Note that there's a difference between overwhelming an enemy with large numbers of cheap vehicles and weapons, and trying to rely on the cost of taking out your equipment being too high for the enemy. You may not have enough equipment and vehicles to do the former even if the latter is true.
One thing I find odd is that we've really only talked about air-power. There's been a distinct lack of discussion of ground vehicles and equipment, which is, in my opinion, much more important given that the atmosphere is three times as dense as Earth's. Look at the drag equation:
Here, the little p is the density of the fluid (air in this case). That means that you're getting roughly three times as much drag at any velocity as aircraft here on Earth do. So your aircraft have to expend more fuel to go the same distance at the same speed, experience more stress on their air-frames, and have their maximum speed reduced substantially.
This also means that combat range is generally reduced across the board. Everything from missiles to artillery to infantry rifles are going to be MUCH shorter ranged. Now this... THIS is something I would have your forces capitalize on. It is unlikely that an invading enemy is going to have practiced for combat in, and developed their weapons for, an atmosphere with three times the density of Earth. I can't say much on if different tactics could be used, but surely the native people would develop their equipment to partially compensate for this, either through improved aerodynamics or through completely different designs. For example, mortars might be able to be made with some sort of lift-generating surface or a cheap propulsion unit (I'm thinking of something equivalent to a simple model rocket engine) to increase their range while not substantially increasing their cost or complexity of production or use.
As for things not related to the atmosphere, but to general production, I think you're looking down the wrong path. Instead of complicated equipment that can be modified, I suggest simple designs that are cheap to produce and maintain. Simplify your logistics by using only a few different types of aircraft and vehicles so that you can get the maximum benefit from mass production. (It's cheaper to tool one big factory or three smaller factories to produce a single type of aircraft or truck than it is to tool three factories to produce three different types of aircraft or trucks) This has the added benefit of being effective regardless of what type of enemy invades and also makes it MUCH easier to get redundant factories up and running if you need to, as you may already have spare parts that you can use to jump-start production of a factory on hand AND the equipment/knowledge to make those spare parts.
The downside is, I believe, that you're a little less flexible. But, given the conditions your people are in, I'd say it's well worth it.
Czcibor said:
1) Use the same engine, just 1 in the bush plane and plenty in the big one (just the math don't work here, mentioned An-2 has 1000hp, while Boeing 377 4*3500hp, so 14 times more) Pack 6 rotors and bind to each 3 engines? (Or have a bigger engine for the bush plane?)
That's unlikely to be useful. Large planes need larger thrust, and its much more efficient to use a couple of larger engines than many smaller engines as far as I know. I'm sure there's a 'sweet spot' where the size of the engine vs the size of the aircraft reaches an optimum.
Czcibor said:
2) To balance needs civilian version would be very rugged, resistant but have rather bad mileage
I would think the reverse would be true. Fuel is expensive (especially in this atmosphere) and the only time I can see someone going for 'ruggedness' over fuel economy is if they're planning to take off and land from dirt/gravel/grass runways. I can't imagine that all these mining towns and whatnot don't have small airfields with simple, concrete runways. This would be even more important if your entire traffic-control system and planes are computer-controlled. A single landing location, with all the necessary equipment for all-weather landings, would greatly increase the safety and efficiency of air transportation compared to trying to land on shoddy runways in random fields and whatnot.
Czcibor said:
4) For military purposes install double engines in the bush plane and put stronger frame
The airframe is essentially 'built-in' to the aircraft. You can't just put a stronger frame in. That requires disassembling most of the plane and its airframe and rebuilding it from the ground up. You're probably better off just having a completely different aircraft that's actually designed to be used in combat, which is nothing like a bush-plane. The unfortunate truth is that military aircraft designed for combat are designed so differently from civilian aircraft that there's literally no point in trying to convert civilian aircraft to a combat role. You might get away with converting for a support role, such as adding military-grade radar and communications equipment to civilian planes, but leave the combat to the actual combat-designed aircraft. (Which don't need to be the expensive, heavy aircraft we generally see. See the bottom of the next paragraph)
Note that many examples of successful conversions, such as the AC-130 gunship, are modifications to aircraft that would never be called 'bush planes'. There's just not a lot you can do with an aircraft that only weighs a few tons. For comparison, an F-16, a relatively lightweight fighter aircraft, carries up to 7.7 tons of weaponry, which is more than the entire weight of an aircraft that I would classify as a bush plane. That's not to say that extremely lightweight aircraft are useless. There are several extra-lightweight designs that have potential, as
this page lists, but they are designed solely for the military, not for civilian landings in the 'boonies', which is what we call the 'bush' here in the states.
Czcibor said:
8) Put the exit from the big passenger plane at the end to get easier conversion for cargo?
It's a relatively trivial thing to add a door on the side of the aircraft to let the passengers out. Besides, many civilian cargo aircraft already include large rear/nose cargo doors.