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?
368K
4.45K
1.94K
565
565
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 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 914
0
0
0
The Air Force use to have an Augmentee program when I was on Active Duty. The would supplement Security Police
(0)
(0)
MSgt Jeff Brown
I did that when I was a young airman stationed at Ramstein AB, 73-75. Most of the time, though the only thing we were armed with was a flashlight. I spent more time than I care to recall turning people away from the South Side of Ramstein during their exercises (the North Side, which was HQ USAFE) never took part in these exercises. A lot of people, particularly the wives, did not like being told they cold not check their mail!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't know when you were in but I qualified as an expert marksman in my basic class. Before I went to Vietnam I attended combat survival school at Fort Sill, Ok. In Vietnam I had to qualify again with the M16. I was an Air Force Meteorologist.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As a combined force, there is only ONE Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy. When I attended the Navy’s Jungle Survival Course as an Army Aviator in the Philippines, ALL of the service members that attended and trained together were taught skills that would increase their survival. Common practice for many if not all aviators at the time carried a side-arm (45 or 38) on their person and many added a rifle or stand-off weapon for the reasons that have already been cited... Further, there were on several occasions where I served in Vietnam that pilots (regardless of service branch) were required to take arm and defend the airfield against enemy aggression. To my knowledge, today’s Air Force Fighter Pilot carry a 9mm Beretta and a M4 Rifle. Bottom line, I support common weapons training for all aviation personnel.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I enlisted in 1977, got M-6 training and a marksman ribbon.. I was ready, just needed a weapon. )
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The same question should be asked of Fleet Officers in the Navy. I have seen the same ineptness on their part of not being able to adequately tear down an M-16 and properly clean the weapon. They did not know how to handle the weapons' on the firing line. The Seabee NEC Officers know how to shoot and take care of their weapons, Fleet Officers are lacking in this.
You ask the question, why the Air Force do not fully qualify all of their Airmen to be rifleman, why don't Marine infantry and Army Infantry know how to fly F-16s?? It's all about the culture for that particular military branch.
You ask the question, why the Air Force do not fully qualify all of their Airmen to be rifleman, why don't Marine infantry and Army Infantry know how to fly F-16s?? It's all about the culture for that particular military branch.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In August of '65 before shipping out I was told to report for small arms training at the now defunct Kincheloe AFB, MI. Expecting to be handed a .38 caliber revolver again as I had in OTS 20 months previously, I was surprised to see an M-16. 49 bullseyes out of 50 after 20 minutes training later they gave me a certificate saying I was qualified and sent me back to my office. Did not allow me to shoot fully automatic but showed us where the switch was. Came in handy.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I served in Vietnam with some co.ponents of MACSOG. The Air Force personnel the we worked with were the only ones that had to specialize in all weapons. The regular Air Force were not as qualified on weapons except as an individual requirement for special duties as security (ie...Air Police ("AP").
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Navy kind of fits in the same scenario as the AF when it has the Marines. Navy & AF does maintain a riot force or if someone tries and breaches the base. When I was in the Navy I had to qualify on the 45 AUTO Pistol, 12 gauge Riot Shotgun & the M14 every 6 months just in case a Riot broke out on the ship or the ship was breached. But a little unknown fact. Did you know that there is a small Marine Detachment assigned to all military bases. Their fist mission is to secure and protect the base if the POTUS visits the base. Then if needed in other events then they are summoned.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Interesting question. I am a 1973 of the Air Force Academy. While there, I was required to qualify, and qualified each year expert, on the m16 and 38 pistol (a joke). I also carried an m1 for three years, probably an adoption of West Point tradition. My second summer we trained in air base security - this was the Vietnam era. However, once on active duty, I was never required to engage in annual arms qualification, let alone issued any firearms. If the flag ever went up we would have to depend on Army troops to defend us from invasion. The answer, perhaps, is that most Air Force bases would have been targeted by air with tactical nukes, or taken out by conventional bombing. Moreover, given the sometimes wasteful duplication of roles in our separate armed services, perhaps the AF better focuses on its more unique mission.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google