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

There actually are two AF career fields I'm familiar with that do require further weapons familiarization and competency: tactical air controllers and weather. Virtually all TACP assignments are with the Army directing AF high flyers toward ground targets. AF weather provides all weather support for the Army. This includes assignments with both aviation and infantry units. This means not only being able to shoot but have the ability to prepare a defensive firing position, i.e., foxhole, read maps and tear down, move and reerect all of your scientific gear in the middle of the night when there is no light unless the moon is shining. Your point is well made and taken, however, by and large AF careers are meant to be performed hundreds to thousands of miles away from most ground fighting, the occasional terror attack or quick strike incursion/mortar attack aside. All of that being said, there are those in the rear echelons who do have a weapons aptitude and will gladly step into the line at the armory if needed.

Most other services don't consider the majority of the AF part of the military for obvious reasons like this.

Worked w/AF security "troops" before and was not impressed but maybe they've improved some (I hope)

When I deployed my troops to OIF and OEF, they were deployed with weapons and before deploying had to qualify with them. While in country, they carried them, slept with them, ate with them, etc. When I deployed for OEF, I deployed with a weapon which I had to qualify with and carry with me while deployed. I am retired Air National Guard.

Its the Commanding Officer's fault. I had thousands of aircraft and munitions maintenance people work for me over a 21 year career, and all of them were required to be M-16 qualified. We also trained in chem warfare suits monthly, and we trained buddy-care battlefield style. I realize I retired 20 years ago... has combat training left the Air Force?

In 1967 when I went to basic everyone received what I call an orientation on the M16. This included disassembly, cleaning, operation, and safe handling of the weapon. We then fired for qualification, and re-qualified annually for, I think, three more years when it was discontinued as a cost savings. Since I grew up hunting it was a piece of cake and qualified expert every time. The course of fire was bare bones, 10 rounds for practice and 60 to qualify at 100yds. When I got to Vietnam as an aircraft mechanic we received a pink card with a connex number on it where if needed we would present the card to be issued a rifle, but no ammo. We had an assigned gun position where we were to go and wait till someone came by and issued us two 20 round magazines. My immediate thought was, they want to get us killed, give me more ammo.

Not sure what the hell happened here, I was an Electronic Warfare Tech during my Air Force Days, and still had to qualify with a M-16. In fact i shot expert. This is a basic military skill that everyone should need to know. If you do not know how to use a rifle you have a glorified hammer. I really hope our standards have not slipped this bad

I’m old school here, but if your deployed you still have security responsibility for your section on the perimeter. So if you can’t reasonably handle your weapon your useless, it should be a requirement, because you never know. It’s not that hard, but if your AF at a FOB you’d better know how to use your weapon.

My comments won’t add much to the debate, but my experience as a competitive rifle shooter since age 12 through college gave me confidence that should there have been a need, I would have been more than capable of handling a weapon. I was training to qualify for the Olympic team that never competed because of the U.S. boycott in 1980, so competence was not a problem; I wonder, however, where the hell I’d find a weapon on my USAF bases!

Ssgt. Christ, hou're in the generation of USAF members that has less training in Combat Arms than I had in my generation (Vidtnam to the first Gulf War). Every one of my generation was trsined in the M-16 for enlisted and .38 pistol for officers (especially pilots and launch cotrol officers). Small arms training was an annual affair for everyone except maybe security police, Combat Controllers and Pararescue men. While I was overseas in Germany, we trained annually because we hsd a very small SP detachment for our main base (a Tactical Air Control Squadron), which meant we'd defend ourselves when the ballon went up. But the main reason USAF personnel aren't well trained in small arms is funding. Thanks to budget cuts, USAF had to decide what was really nesccessary, and what wasn't. Pilot (fighter and bomber types) were at the top of the nesccessary list. CCT, PJs, missile lauchers Security Police came next. All others were deemed secondary combatants. Henceforth, small arms training was just once a year thing for the 99% of officer and enlisted career fields. The TAC squadrons were split into Combat Crew qualified (officers and enlisted scope dopes and Non Combat Crew enlisted). As an enlisted maintenance technican, who would defend the radar site while we were deployed, I was not deemed Combat Crew. But I had to fight every and any enemy troop that came near our radar site. One thing USAF forgot, was we were open to air attack by the Warsaw Pact and they'd be using HARMs (Highspeed Anti Radiation Missiles) designed to destroy our radar and its operators. We had no Stinger missiles to defend ourselves either. Neither did our Security Police.