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

The AFSCs that require the regular use of a weapon are qualified. I guess it is kind of like asking why an Air Force dentist isn't qualified to fly an F-16. This isn't like JAG where an F-14 pilot is also a SEAL trained lawyer.

how dose that happen I have never seen that the magazine in backwards doesn't it only fit in the receiver one way rounds up. in my day it was the M-16-A1 but I did my time as a rifleman in the ARMY infantry as A M-60 gunner with a M-1911 .45 sidearm it is my understanding that every branch goes to basic training before they go to MOS. training

I went into the AF in 1970 and was taken to the range to learn how to shoot the m16. While in Germany , CE Prime Beef was also taken to the range, some prime beef members were tagged during alerts for security police extra support. That was between 72-74.

When Airmen are handed a combat mission, they receive the necessary combat training and go perform the mission well. Air Force 2T1s (Vehicle Operators) were tasked to augment the Army 88M soldiers who had been heavily tasked in convoy operations in Iraq. They were trained, equipped and deployed to perform the mission - and performed extremely well. While the nature of the convoy missions demanded a more defensive posture, any Airman working outside the wire needed to be prepared for anything. Security Forces were tasked with perimeter defense - generally in close proximity to wherever the AF base is; or personal defense - generally wherever a senior officer needs to go. On the other hand, convoy operations moved people and equipment between bases, posts or other locations sometimes hundreds of miles apart through hostile territory. Not better, not worse, just different. My advice? Train everyone to a high level of proficiency.

It is interesting to hear all the talk about how the SF is the infantry and that everyone else doesn't need to be armed or trained. Having been a 46370 and 55272 I can tell you that there are other people in the AF that do get trained with weapons. If anything, there should be more training. The problem of prescribing more training is that you run up against budgetary issues. Very few people in the AF have had the experience to use their weapons effectively. Also very few have been trained on individual movement and squad tactics.

The big element for leadership is the balance of doing the job you have been trained for and then attempting to find the time and budget to train for the basics of combat. At some point this lack of training will come back to bite us.

The Air Force largely operates from fixed facilities with concrete runways, hangars, control towers, precision landing systems, POL storage, motor pools, clean rooms for repairing sensitive systems, some of the best fire fighting equipment in the world, meteorological systems and air/ground operation areas. Not to forget the tremendous number of supplies and spare parts we keep on hand. We are largely technicians, not combat troops except for flight crews and our outstanding security personnel. If many of us have a "beef" with our Air Force - it's our constant attempt to move away from Ground Support for our Army and Marine Corps, a case in point? The A-10 Warthog!

after being discharged from the army, I considered enlisting as a chaplain's assistant in the air force reserve. I thought it was a bit ironic that it is one of the few jobs that require proficiency with weapons, since they are tasked with the responsibility of force protection and physical security.

Well, the ARMY and MARINES can't always be around to defend air bases. So the Air Force personnel (aside from security police) have fill in. When I was in Germany, working Tactical Air Control, (mobile radar) . We had to defend our site with all the available bodies we had. Unfortunately we had some Rambo wannabes, who could shoot, recognize enemy targets or keep their mouths shut. Once in awhile we interacted with Germany Army troops to see how well we could do. 60-40 in favor of the Germanys.

Duh, I was on mobility for 14 years, served as a Law Enforcement officer for my first 3, and qualified with the K-38 Combat Masterpiece (S&W Model 15), the M-1 Carbine, the M-2 carbine, the crank bolt "sniper" rifle with the Unertl scope, the M-60, the CAR-15, and the M-16, and the combat shotgun. I even learned how to operate an M-1 Garand for ceremonial purposes (military honors at funerals). I carried a non-issued .45 during my Vietnam tour, and still carry a .45 as my EDC (every day carry). Even after moving on from Law Enforcement to Purchasing, I was still required to qual on the M-16 at least annually. Since every man in our unit, and woman too, was required to annually qualify with the M-16, I'm confused. Is USAF saving money on guns and ammo? When did this policy begin. I served from 1968 until 1989, and retired as an E-7.

If Air Force personnel are not intended to carry a weapon as the Army or Marines do daily, then why pray tell are Air Force personnel sent to combat zones in support roles? I've been assigned to Combat Out Posts and Afghan Brigade Command Posts where Air Force S2 personnel were in both TOCs and with handguns. Bottom-line, in my humble opinion, there are no "rear" areas in today's asymmetric battlefield so the Air Force needs to hone some battle skills for all its soldiers before it's to late.