Posted on May 28, 2015
Why don't all members of the Air Force have to be fully qualified to be a rifleman in case of hostile events?
392K
4.23K
1.93K
562
562
0
I have noticed through the years of being in the Air Force (Security Forces member here) that most people in the Air Force are clueless when it comes to M-4/M-16/M-9. This is outrageous! What are they supposed to do if the enemy comes knocking on our door step and everyone needs to fight. I have taught classes on the M-4 with communication airmen and have seen them completely mess up clearing out the weapon, loading it (magazine upside down or rounds the wrong way), and just completely incapable of achieving a zero on target after four rounds of firing. I am a big fan of how the Army and Marines teach that your are always a rifleman first. It almost seems like some of the Airmen don't expect to carry a weapon (ummmm why did you join the military in the first place)? I wish the Air Force would pick up on this to make us a more combat ready force. But, enough of me what are your thoughts?
Rifleman
3P: Security Forces
Air Force
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 907
6
6
0
LtCol Bruce Janis
That is great, if the A-10 can get off, but when you are defending your own airbase, the grunts ain’t gonna get much assistance. There the Marine’ Air Wing and Army choppers.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
Simple terms 'Air Support' vs 'Ground Support' thus the Air Force relies on the other branches to secure its bases in a combat environment. Just imagine all the tax dollars saved in not training folks a skill that they will more than likely never need. I think we would need to lose an Air Base before this will ever be addressed.
(5)
(0)
SSgt Scott Ezra
That's just not true. The Air Force Security Forces have been protecting their own bases for years over many conflicts/wars.
I did this personally for years and it's why we get the training and equipment we get.
The USAF is top notch second to none when it comes to Air Base Defense. Now, that doesn't mean there are no scenarios where we might need help, but that is true for all branches.
We have highly specialized troops for just about every scenario with the equipment, training, and skill set to accomplish the mission.
Any action that would overwhelm an Air Force base would equally overwhelm a Navy, Army, or Marine base.
I did this personally for years and it's why we get the training and equipment we get.
The USAF is top notch second to none when it comes to Air Base Defense. Now, that doesn't mean there are no scenarios where we might need help, but that is true for all branches.
We have highly specialized troops for just about every scenario with the equipment, training, and skill set to accomplish the mission.
Any action that would overwhelm an Air Force base would equally overwhelm a Navy, Army, or Marine base.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
SSgt Scott Ezra agree just talking overall scope and mission Air Force's domain is air/space/nuke while Army's domain is ground. It wasn't until 1987 when the Security Police became the Security Forces and a true combat arms force. Not trying to discredit their service.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Scott Ezra
SPC David S. I believe that it was 1997 when they switched the name from Security Police to Security Forces. I was Combat Security Police and later Combat Security Forces. Most people have no idea what that means or that it even exists. There is also the Phoenix Ravens and the DAGRE teams.
Back in the 1960's when it was the Air Police they were defending bases in Vietnam and there are some historic battles. I think we have a cool history. In the past we went from basic training to the Police Academy, then to Army infantry school in Fort Dix, then depending to our first base or some more training. I personally went through a lot of combat and special tactics training.
I think the majority of people have no idea of the training we go through. The exceptional airmen get nominated for special training and some volunteer.
You are right in general, but Security Forces are almost all ground forces and they are the largest career field in the USAF. There is a clear distinction. In my opinion that is the genius of the Air Force. We have specialists that focus solely on their career fields and become really good at that one thing and all of the things that go with it.
Security Forces are indeed considered light infantry so when you put that with the fact that they are by far the largest career field, the Air Force is mostly light infantry. However, we specialize in Air base defense and enforcing the laws, regulations and UCMJ.
We aren't an offensive group In most aspects like some in the Army and Marines. We have a history of defense that goes back to World War 2 when we were known as the Army Air Corp and Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent explanation that apparently no one ever reads, haha. I wouldn't necessarily say it is the definitive explanation, but its a good start.
Back in the 1960's when it was the Air Police they were defending bases in Vietnam and there are some historic battles. I think we have a cool history. In the past we went from basic training to the Police Academy, then to Army infantry school in Fort Dix, then depending to our first base or some more training. I personally went through a lot of combat and special tactics training.
I think the majority of people have no idea of the training we go through. The exceptional airmen get nominated for special training and some volunteer.
You are right in general, but Security Forces are almost all ground forces and they are the largest career field in the USAF. There is a clear distinction. In my opinion that is the genius of the Air Force. We have specialists that focus solely on their career fields and become really good at that one thing and all of the things that go with it.
Security Forces are indeed considered light infantry so when you put that with the fact that they are by far the largest career field, the Air Force is mostly light infantry. However, we specialize in Air base defense and enforcing the laws, regulations and UCMJ.
We aren't an offensive group In most aspects like some in the Army and Marines. We have a history of defense that goes back to World War 2 when we were known as the Army Air Corp and Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Wikipedia has a pretty decent explanation that apparently no one ever reads, haha. I wouldn't necessarily say it is the definitive explanation, but its a good start.
(1)
(0)
SPC David S.
SSgt Scott Ezra great response and info. I know a guy that was a combat controller attached with SF. I agree a lot of people have no clue the extent of training for some of the roles in the Air Force. Father was a pilot so familiar with 1970's version of security forces and red lines. Smart move for AF to address their ground game in addition to all the craziness regarding special weapons
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Khobar Towers bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Khobar Towers bombing was a terrorist attack on part of a housing complex in the city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia, located near the national oil company (Saudi Aramco) headquarters of Dhahran on June 25, 1996. At that time Khobar Towers was being used as quarters for foreign military personnel.
(5)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
I appreciate the story and I will reiterate that ROE and location is paramount in dealing with threats in a deployed location. Your last article speaks of an attack on a base in Iraq where we had an active combat zone and the Marines were posted essentially on the wire. This cannot be compared to Khobar Towers, which was in a non-combat zone at the time, there wasn't any intel concerning this type of attack, and the ROEs were much different in this specific location compared to Iraq 2008.
I myself have stared down an unknown vehicle approaching my DFP, inside the wire on the Afghan side of a base in Afghanistan on a night we just experienced a green on blue incident 200 meters from the location I was standing on. It was slow moving, we called it in, the decision was mine to fire if we noted anything threatening. Fortunately for me and the Airmen/Soldier on the wall along side me, the vehicle was an innocent contractor driving long past the curfew and we did not fire. He has no idea that at least 5 M-4s were trained on him as he drove by our position that night. But what if he was a threat and my decision to hold fire was wrong? We stood there on the DFP closest to the vehicle, praying it was not a threat, basing the decision not to fire on the fact we were still inside the wire and the vehicle was moving too slow.
My point is, we do get trained to deal with the types of threats we are likely to meet in combat situations. As an Airman deployed for a year to Afghanistan, I took my training seriously, knowing I would be training Afghans everyday outside the perimeter of my FOB. You'd be surprised what we would do.
I myself have stared down an unknown vehicle approaching my DFP, inside the wire on the Afghan side of a base in Afghanistan on a night we just experienced a green on blue incident 200 meters from the location I was standing on. It was slow moving, we called it in, the decision was mine to fire if we noted anything threatening. Fortunately for me and the Airmen/Soldier on the wall along side me, the vehicle was an innocent contractor driving long past the curfew and we did not fire. He has no idea that at least 5 M-4s were trained on him as he drove by our position that night. But what if he was a threat and my decision to hold fire was wrong? We stood there on the DFP closest to the vehicle, praying it was not a threat, basing the decision not to fire on the fact we were still inside the wire and the vehicle was moving too slow.
My point is, we do get trained to deal with the types of threats we are likely to meet in combat situations. As an Airman deployed for a year to Afghanistan, I took my training seriously, knowing I would be training Afghans everyday outside the perimeter of my FOB. You'd be surprised what we would do.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
War and conflict is full of surprises, Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin, but I also have learned that servicemembers (even zoomies) will usually rise to the occasion, making better decisions and taking greater actions, than most would give us credit for.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Scott Ezra
Yes, I was there and the Air Force Security Forces, Security Police at the time, acted quickly and efficiently and saved many lives. Having more airman trained on service weapons wouldn't have changed a thing.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Scott Ezra
SSgt (Join to see) Yes, we acted quickly and decisively that day and if people want to use that attack as an example it is an example of how well trained the Security Forces are.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't know if anything has changed but from what I always understood, all Airmen qualify on either the M-16 (Enlisted) or M-9 (officer) upon initial training into the Air Force. From there we continue to qualify in conjunction with our AEF and/or through just in time training before an unexpected/short notice deployment. I had not qualified in a few years about 2 years from my retirement as I was serving in either a joint or non-deployable position. As soon as I got back into a deployable position I was tagged for a short tour (retirement present). I had 3 weeks to prepare for an Air Advisor role (hostile environment) and they qualified me on both the M-4 and M-9. From there I attended the Air Advisor Academy course (great training by the way) where we were required to take Advance Weapons Training, Self Protection, and many of the Combat Arms Training most about to be deployed personnel go through at Ft Dix or Camp Bullis.
We are not a ground fighting force and yes, we do usually defer to those who are trained more to take those roles. Still, After experiencing a Green on Green followed by a Green on Blue event in a 24 hour period on or right outside our own FOB, everyone served time on the wall for 24/7 DFP duty. Additionally, we increased our training in defensive tactics, range time, etc thereafter. We may not have been an elite fighting unit of any kind, but I assure you we could hold our own knowing our Army force protection was there with us and ground/air reinforcements were not far away.
Never would I think as a Cyberspace Operations Officer I would watch a live active shooter event from on top of an old Soviet Air Tower, with a UAV and Apache/Blackhawk support flying overhead in the dead of night. Very surreal experience...
I think the level of training required for Airmen is appropriate and often ridiculed due to some of the anecdotes people can refer to (I have some of my own). Still, time after time, I can also point to events where Airmen have come through as quite proficient in understanding what to do and taking action when required.
We are not a ground fighting force and yes, we do usually defer to those who are trained more to take those roles. Still, After experiencing a Green on Green followed by a Green on Blue event in a 24 hour period on or right outside our own FOB, everyone served time on the wall for 24/7 DFP duty. Additionally, we increased our training in defensive tactics, range time, etc thereafter. We may not have been an elite fighting unit of any kind, but I assure you we could hold our own knowing our Army force protection was there with us and ground/air reinforcements were not far away.
Never would I think as a Cyberspace Operations Officer I would watch a live active shooter event from on top of an old Soviet Air Tower, with a UAV and Apache/Blackhawk support flying overhead in the dead of night. Very surreal experience...
I think the level of training required for Airmen is appropriate and often ridiculed due to some of the anecdotes people can refer to (I have some of my own). Still, time after time, I can also point to events where Airmen have come through as quite proficient in understanding what to do and taking action when required.
(4)
(0)
MSgt David Webb
We trained on the M16 in basic training and non-combat AFSCs (I was a medic) do a refresher every 4 years and just-in-time pre-deployment. I was also qualified on the M9 because I volunteered as a weapons courier for my unit.
(0)
(0)
MSgt David Webb
LtCol Bruce Janis yes, unless you are deploying. Then they send you to the range as part of your pre-deployment training. If you don't deploy, most AFSCs will never touch a weapon.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Let us hope we never get to a point were all members of the Air Force need to be fully qualified as riflemen.
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Red Dawn (1984)- POW camp attack
Lt. Col. Andrew Tanner assists the Wolverines in organizing raids against the Soviets. They raid a POW camp and free prisoners.
Everybody knows that only USAF fighter pilots will actually need any infantry skills, for advising high-school-age guerilla forces after having their aircraft shot to pieces by AAA or SAMs, GySgt Duane DaVein:
https://youtu.be/mBYRCem_bOI?t=23
https://youtu.be/mBYRCem_bOI?t=23
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Airmen (including officers) of all genders should, at the very least, know how ro load/unload/make safe a standard rifle. They should also have some facility with aiming it and shooting it. Why? Because other nations have paratroopers and special forces, just like we do.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
It's a cost versus reality issue. The cost of training everyone annually versus the odds of it ever being necessary. Bullets, range use, wear and tear, man hours, etc. The juice isn't worth the squeeze when you look at the mission of the Air Force. We're not a ground fighting branch and even if WW3 kicked off we wouldn't send in the AF to fight on the ground.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I am retired USAF, but from an Army family. I find the idea that anyone in the Air Force is trained to Infantry level Combat skilla is silly, with and exception for special ops types. Most peole even in the Army are not trained to that level. Since traini b g and maintaining that level of skill is a n full time job who is going to maintain the equipment?
(3)
(0)
LtCol Bruce Janis
Oh, dear me. Let’s just say it will never happen, until it does. BTW, Infantry Lever Combat skills is not the same as small arms qualification. I realize that there is a 40-hour a week rule in the USAF, but maybe a hour of practice in the evening would give the airman a fighting chance. Or, I guess you could issue white flags and put them in the arms locker.
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
LtCol Bruce Janis - 40 hour a week rule the folks on the flight-line would be extactic about 60 or 70 hour weeks even in peacetime. If An Air Force flight-line comes under heavy attack things are so f**d that we have lost the war already
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
As a prior Marine (88-92) and a CATM instructor going back to 2005, I will warn you now, what I have to say is the outright, honest truth and I pull no punches (and say "fuck" a lot) so if that offends you and are easily butt-hurt, stop reading right now. If you're still reading, I will tell you straight out that the small arms training program the Air Force gives amounts to nothing more than a CYA statement for the USAF. In Korea during 1951, Kimpo airbase was over run by the Chi-coms and NKA. Airmen had zero firearms training and after they brushed aside the Security Police, the took every airman they captured and hung them from the rafters in the main hanger! Sadly, Air Force leadership has the long term memory rivaled only by a fucking goldfish! In the Marines, you get Expert, Sharpshooter or Marksman (the shitter seat award) and it WILL have an effect on your promotions! In the Air Force, there seems to be an emphasis on volunteering or education but what happens if they can't shoot? The command will like a monkey flinging shit at a wall hoping for something to stick, keep sending them back out over and over again until they do qualify. I had a MSgt. that the shit finally stuck to the wall on her 8th fucking attempt and that was with a barely passing score of 18 out of 50! There is no further adverse reactions should they fail to qualify. I seen a 2nd LT when I was in the Marines that got a 186 with a passing score of 189 out of 250 possible. The skipper had him beat his face in front of the entire Company formation! Don't give me that "unprofessional" or "hazing" bullshit! He embarrassed the Company so the skipper made damn sure he knew what embarrassment the company had to feel having a non-shooting fuck leading a platoon! It worked! Next time he qualified and everybody knew that God save the poor bastard that ever failed like that again!
Want to know what it's like for CATM instructors out there doing this job? Do a Youtube search for "A Day in the Life of a CATM Troop." That's one I made and again, I pull no punches about what I consider my career highlight film. Everything in that video is based off of real events and only the names have been hidden to protect the incompetent!
The other problem is in the mentality. I've had a med group Captain tell me she was scared of guns (hoplophobia) or the elitism of how their war is in the air. I lso had a F-15E pilot try to tell me that one too once. Kind of took the wind out of his prima donna sails when I mentioned the name Captain Scott O'Grady getting flamed and now having to rely on an M9 while he E&E'd on the ground!
No, sadly, it will take another Kimpo massacre, the Air Force will trot out their 522 waving it in their peter-beater saying, "Well, they were trained", and then somebody taking a look at the level of training they need to "qualify" if not the whole Air Force culture.
Want to know what it's like for CATM instructors out there doing this job? Do a Youtube search for "A Day in the Life of a CATM Troop." That's one I made and again, I pull no punches about what I consider my career highlight film. Everything in that video is based off of real events and only the names have been hidden to protect the incompetent!
The other problem is in the mentality. I've had a med group Captain tell me she was scared of guns (hoplophobia) or the elitism of how their war is in the air. I lso had a F-15E pilot try to tell me that one too once. Kind of took the wind out of his prima donna sails when I mentioned the name Captain Scott O'Grady getting flamed and now having to rely on an M9 while he E&E'd on the ground!
No, sadly, it will take another Kimpo massacre, the Air Force will trot out their 522 waving it in their peter-beater saying, "Well, they were trained", and then somebody taking a look at the level of training they need to "qualify" if not the whole Air Force culture.
(3)
(0)
MSgt J D McKee
I was told about Kimpo (could't remember the name until you said it) in the SP Tech School (it was at the time), and one of the things they told us was that they found recon photos taken by the North Koreans of Air Police trying to put a .30 caliber M1 carbine mag in a BAR. Or maybe it was vice versa. I was security for about 17 years of my total 22, cross trained to CATM then came back (no promotions).
The Air Force is just stupid when it comes to this topic. All it takes is one idiot in the chain, and there are usually considerably more than just one. Then, they do crap like "Project Warrior" and other idiocy so someone can get credit for doing ...whatever "warrior like" stuff they envision. Warriors need tools, in this case, guns and training.
Couldn't expect an aircraft mechanic to work on an airplane without tools and training. Why not give that same aircraft mechanic the very cheap and easy training and tools to defend themselves if necessary? My major war wing during Gulf 1 had about 5 to 7000 personnel (from memory, could be off) and between 2 and 300 SP's defending the whole shooting match. Those last numbers are from memory, too, but more likely to be accurate as I want them to be, even at this distance in time.
Just stupid. If we are gonna send our people to war, the least we owe them is a fucking weapon and the ability to use it. Then, if a breach happens, they aren't just dead meat.
It is both dishonorable and disrespectful of the people involved to make them go to war with no weapon.
The Air Force is just stupid when it comes to this topic. All it takes is one idiot in the chain, and there are usually considerably more than just one. Then, they do crap like "Project Warrior" and other idiocy so someone can get credit for doing ...whatever "warrior like" stuff they envision. Warriors need tools, in this case, guns and training.
Couldn't expect an aircraft mechanic to work on an airplane without tools and training. Why not give that same aircraft mechanic the very cheap and easy training and tools to defend themselves if necessary? My major war wing during Gulf 1 had about 5 to 7000 personnel (from memory, could be off) and between 2 and 300 SP's defending the whole shooting match. Those last numbers are from memory, too, but more likely to be accurate as I want them to be, even at this distance in time.
Just stupid. If we are gonna send our people to war, the least we owe them is a fucking weapon and the ability to use it. Then, if a breach happens, they aren't just dead meat.
It is both dishonorable and disrespectful of the people involved to make them go to war with no weapon.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google