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

I was active duty in the AF for 8 years. I started as a weapons maintenance technician. Basically I loaded bombs and ammo on aircraft and maintained the weapons systems of the aircraft. We were required to qualify annually with our rifles, while I was assigned to fixed wing aircraft. When I went to the CSAR (combat search and rescue) side still doing the same job, we were required to qualify alot more but we also carried an M9 at all times when we had our weapons vault open and when the helicopters had weapons loaded on them. So, some of us that are not SF do qualify and do carry weapons daily.

Take the Naval Seabees as an example. I was a heavy equipment operator but had to train with the Marines for combat duty. In Vietnam we had to man our own bases perimeter and if attacked in the field would have to defend our positions. Could the Air Force have the same training?

I see your point however back in the day weren't all Marines as Army personnel were primary infantry? I carried the M-16/M-4 for 22 years of my 25 year AF career. It was easy to see not everyone in the USAF was comfortable with a weapon. However, as a SPS/SF member, I had extensive training for years on all weapons in the USAF inventory. There are many specialty codes in the AF. I bet a lot of SFS members would be unfamiliar with tool of other AFSC trades. Just for thought....

I would agree with you. I think everyone should be taught how to handle a weapon. Me I'm old school S.P K-9

Amen, bro! As a Security Forces veteran myself, my thoughts exactly, ESPECIALLY in this post-9/11 world we live in!

That's a damn good question, Staff. I agree with your assessment, but I'd go even further. This nation was built by warriors from conquest and has required constant vigilance to maintain. While we serve, the rest of the country gradually becomes more gentrified and less able to assist in its own defense should the need arise, which at some point it will. It's foolhardy to believe otherwise. Our gun ownership is not a privilege, it is a birthright for a reason and as such, Being familiar with basic small arms safety should be a matter of course for all able Americans. That such is not the case with some members of the Air Force is unacceptable. Especially given that they are just a generation removed from when they were still Army

It makes no sense. You would think there would be a great outcry from the active duty members of the USAF. I sure as Hell would want to know how to fight, just in case my base was over run. That is EXACTLY why the USMC trains every Marine to be a rifleman first, no matter what their MOS is. The Marine band once defended the nations capital during the war of 1812 because they were the only federal troops available.

I was aircraft maintenance most of my career but I was sent over to the SF squadron because they were undermanned and I can say that I think all of the USAF needs to take this type of training up a notch. It didn't seem to be that hard for non-SF airmen to do some OJT with the SF NCOs and be an effective "rifleman". This was before the fun in Afghanistan. So what if a c-130 full of maintenance & supply personnel has an IFE and lands in the middle of nowhere Afghanistan. There is no Army or Marine unit there to protect them. These airmen will need to defend themselves. If is foolish to expect these airmen to know how to do any kind of integrated defense when all the training they get is a trip to the M16 range once a year. The USAF needs to get rid of things like transgender sensitivity training and replace it with squad-level perimeter defense.

When I came in everyone learned in Basic then had to renew their quals at least annually. Even then you still had those kinds of issues, although not quite as much. I think the more you have ready to defend the better off you are. But from what I've seen as other than SF there are some who just don't have the ability and I wouldn't want around me with a firearm if something happened.

I've always been told the reason we don't now is budget cuts. Since Airmen, realistically speaking, are almost never in a spot where a weapon would be required it was viewed as an easy budget saving measure. Fewer weapons needed, fewer instructors needed, lot less ammo needed.

Personally I agree that if you're in the military you should maintain proficiency with your expected firearms/weapons. With the lack of training it's one reason I bought my own AR-15 style rifle, and plan to get a 92FS since I've been qual'd on the M9. It's also why I was allowed to PCS into California with it when otherwise they'd prefer to lock you up for crossing the state border with one. But from an overall strategic viewpoint, in the current environment, I can't knock leadership for the decisions overall. I'd prefer it to be otherwise, but preferences aren't always feasible.

In 1965 the 12th TFW deployed to Vietnam. As a cargo courier I carried an M16 and 60 rounds of ammo in three 20 round magazines. At this time I was an AGE mechanic. When we arrived in country we had 13 Security Policemen. As a result, those of us on the aircraft maintenance side became part of a fire team. We eventually go a ROK battalion as our outer perimeter.