博客來This study examines the difficulties involved in fielding technology appropriate to the mission. Using Graham Allison’s models of decision-making as analytical lenses, the author shows how the ＂appropriate technology dilemma＂ challenged those responsible for interdicting the North Vietnamese Army along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in 1966-67. Known as the ＂propeller versus jet＂ controversy, there was a difference of opinion between the ＂unconventional＂ Air Commandos and the ＂conventional＂ Air Force as to how best to accomplish the interdiction mission. Three decades after the propeller versus jet controversy, Air Commandos still faced the appropriate technology dilemma. The 6th Special Operations Squadron is an aviation foreign internal defense advisory unit. Like their Vietnam era predecessors, the founders of the 6th Special Operations Squadron sought to field technology appropriate to their mission, while facing numerous challenges along the way. Air Force Special Operations Command faces the same dilemma as it searches for technology relevant for the future. Understanding the difficulties in fielding appropriate technology may shed some useful light for today’s military commanders, strategists, and force structure planners as they plan for the future.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
