Why don't all members of the Air Force have to be fully qualified to be a rifleman in case of hostile events?

The issue is proficiency; I am a firm believer in it. You either do something or you don’t you don’t maybe do it. The Air Force has for longtime treated weapons qualifications as a joke. As I remember my AFSC would fire like 50 rounds every two years and out of that you are qualified for combat. We were not trained to March, run, crawl, with a weapon. While at Eglin AFB we would have exercise with unloaded weapons I can’t tell you how many time I would get on a bus with people that had for whatever reason the bolts pulled back and they hit the stock down on the floor of the bus and all you could hear was the sound of 9 or 10 bolts going forward and you could tell they had no idea what had done at least at Kelly AFB we were issued blank’s and we would go to camp Bullies and were actually attack but we were never trained in anyway how to coordinate fire or move. In my AFSC we would watch a training film on how to put out a fire, in my 22 years I had seen 4 aircraft burn to the ground. So I think that maybe we should do hands on firefighting and watch a film on weapons use.
That all being said SP,OSI, CE especially Prime beef, PJ’s, Forward controllers, and Combat weather do get more training and are qualified and maybe more (sorry if I missed anyone) but the last thing you want is a bunch of people around you that don’t know what the hell to do in combat.

The Air Force's raison d'être is "air, space and cyberspace superiority" as the Air Force mission is to "fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace." After the experience of World War II and nuclear weapons, the Air Force was born mainly to strike distant adversaries and conduct nuclear operations. Although the Air Force branched from the Army, its organizing principle is aviation forces both combat and service, providing the Army with close combat and logistical air support (strategic air warfare, airlift, aerial refueling, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance).

However, I do agree that rifle qualification should be part of Air Force Readiness. Currently, only airmen who bear firearms on duty, who are armed in-garrison, or deploying to a contingency operation are given proper weapons training and are limited to the type of weapon they are authorized to carry. As for my AFSC, if deployed, I will only be trained on the M9.

The Air Force requires an annual Active Shooter Training (Expeditionary Active Shooter Training for airmen deploying) that teaches airmen to "escape, barricade, or fight" but again, your fighting chance is limited to the type of weapon you have been trained on and authorized to carry. Although this training also discussed that recent shootings in Germany and Afghanistan have changed the way that leadership views the criticality of weapons handling skills and that commanders must ensure weapon training extends beyond qualifications training, Air Force has yet to incorporate these into actions.

The Air Force is just different that way, also probably why it doesn't have its own battle cry.

I did already.

I answered before, below, but had another thought---the USAF lacks weapons training, the USMC infantry doesn't, or don't seem to from the outside. What I do remember the Marines lacking on one occasion was bullets in their guns. Or at least magazines. It was on the TV news in the 1980's when they walked ashore in Beruit, Lebanon, all kinds of guns and gear, and not a one of them had a magazine in their weapon. That was on the news and I watched it from the safety of the UK. I couldn't believe that. This was the Marines who got blown up not long after that and killed 200+ of them, I think it was. So, Marines, please answer a question I haven't thought of since the 1980's---was this common practice back then?

AF is the specialists of the Air not ground combat and to make us equivalent to the Army/Marines either one would require so much additional training that it would diminish our nation's Air Power. I'd rather be manning the berms with a platoon of well trained riflemen than a Wing's worth of half trained Airman at my back. That said I am a AF Qualified Marksman on the M-16/M-4 and I've never attempted to be M-9 qualified. Later in my career I was qualified on crew served weapons during convoy training such as the M-240, M-249, and M-2. Also earlier in my career before I was retrained I was Pig (M-60) qualified when I was a Civil engineer as part of our Prime Beef exercises where we went and played war games at Fort Polk. In the AF we don't have degree's of marksmanship your either Qualified, non-qualified, or a Marksman. My proficiency does not come from my military training. It came from growing up with weapons and my father a retired cop who has been shot on two separate occasions both times off duty being a be prepared for anything kind of guy.

The Air Force is swamping its troops with soul sucking, pointless CBTs. Get rid of these and now you have the time to train. Next go through and get rid of the tons of waste programs/funding (the Air Force takes the cake here) and now you have the funding. Problem solved.

I had the same question 40+ years ago as a Security Policeman in Thailand, up along the Laotian border on the Mekong. The only personnel that carried and knew how to use weapons were Security Police. I don't think anyone else fired a weapon after Basic. Pilots and Aircrew members were proficient. Sorry to see nothing has changed. And back then the possibility of Action on an Air Base was more likely.

I agree in a large part . AF in my day had even a more dismal record of teaching marksmanship. Fortunately I had been firing rifles and assorted other weapons since I was six years old and could tear down an M-1 rifle or Carbine down blindfolded. More than half my training squadron could not even load a weapon or zero one. Some had never even held a weapon and were scared to death of one... perhaps a good thing since it kept them from shooting someone on the range. All AF personnel should have training in the main issue weapon of the day and know how to at least field strip the weapon blindfolded, fire it with confidence in order to protect themselves in case the time comes that they will actually have to use a weapon for self defense. If the day doesn't come, all well and good but should it come, it is better to be well prepared and alive than to be unprepared and dead.

MY grandsons last week of BMT was this type of training. Not a "Hell Week" but close. Don't know if there is an annual training though. He did get additional training before going to Bagram!

I would say... SSgt (Join to see), because it is the Air Force, and probably not necessary. Should they be? Yes. But, ammunition and qualifications are fiscal constraints at the end of the day, and the jobs and units that need them most shoot the most.