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

The Air Force was never intended to be a ground fighting unit. Back in the day, AF bases were protected by Army units for that very same reason. The ground fighting component of the AF is SF. Among our many duties, being the infantry of the AF is one of them. I started my military career in the Army and I will tell you that the AF as a whole was never designed to operate like the Army or Marines. The culture is completely different, and for good reason. The AF could not operate under the same culture as the Army or Marines. In SF, weapons are a tool for us. For the majority of the AF, a weapon is not a tool that they use in their day to day duties. ANd frankly, it should not be. I used to be CATM, and I can tell you that keeping an M-4 away from most AF members is a good thing.

Completely in jest. I have seen people in all branches who should be permanently downloaded (having their weapons privileges revoked).

Everyone sees things through their own experiences. If I were an AF Security Forces officer, I might share your opinion. As a pilot, I was required to qualify annually on my assigned personal weapon, the M-9, because aircrew members deploy more than other AF personnel. So far that makes sense. So why not go to the much bigger effort and expense of making us like the Army or Marine Corps and force every Airman to qualify annually? To put it as simply as possible, because there is a fixed amount of time and money, and there isn't an Air Force base in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else we fight. When deployed, we generally either to deploy to large Airbases in-country with our Army, Navy, and Marine brethren (who are responsible to protect the base) or out-of-country where the threat is much lower (SA, Qatar, Bahrain, etc). I know there are exceptions, especially for our Special Forces community...but then they are qualified on their personal weapons, aren't they? In order to be the best at Our Job as Airmen, we spend our time and money on training aircrew, mechanics, and all the other support functions necessary to keep airpower supporting the Joint Force Commander. If we spent lots of time and money to be like the Army and the Marines, we would be better infantrymen but worse airmen.

As an Intel Guy, I was told I would never have the need to be armed. Intel traditionally stays so far behind the lines, you'd never know we even existed.

And that lasted for about the first three years of my career.

Operation Restore Hope saw my first need to be armed and know how to use it effectively. Then the AF got the bright idea of getting rid of 60% of the Security Forces billets and I found myself being trained as a READY and standing on a gate for 12 hours at a time. Then came the multiple OEF/OIF deployments. Let's not get into the times I actually had to USE that weapon to defend myself and fellow service members close by.

"You'll never need that training...." is the worst form of bad planning. With Today's smaller, more mobile force, I think the days of staying all comfy and warm on a heavily defended base somewhere in the Dallas Back 40 are going to become the exception rather than the norm.

The Army and Marines are drawing down forces as well. Relying on troops who may not be there in the future does no one any good when the time comes.

The purpose behind this turn in our training can be explained in two ways.
1st. The Air Force is reactive in Nature. Our Higher Ups prefer to spend money on a worthless Uniform or its improved uniform (but not provide it to all of those in the Service) and placing us in front of computers to train instead of getting our Airmen outside and in real classrooms.
2nd. Budget. The budget drives everything. It costs more to train, retrain, and throw out failures vs allowing them to perform their jobs on a regular basis.

As a Combat Arms Instructor (CATM Troop, SAMTU Descendant), I think not making every Airman a rifleman is a huge disservice and it degrades our true readiness. Readiness should be measured by our ability to perform our primary jobs, secondary duties, and our ability to function on the battlefield. Functioning on the battlefield would include getting off our Asses and getting out in the “Field” for training. The “Field” is not a 4 Star Hotel. It is sleeping in whatever piece of sh!t tent your unit has provided for you.

I am glad I was in Security Forces and I have knowledge in weapons systems. I am glad I was able to instill some of my knowledge onto my Airmen prior to retiring.

It's all fun and games until an airfield gets overun. No one can find a weapon , load one, shoot one or hit anything if they did.

Point of order though. Shooting a rifle or qualifying with it does not make you a rifleman. Knowing fire team and squad tactics, close combat, bayonet, manuever etc etc etc are some of the other skills of a rifleman. Being physically fit enough to carry on through a firefight would be nice too.

The air force is pretty far gone on this skill. My Dad, who was career air force (retired in late 70'). Was proficient with a rifle. Not to the standards of the Marine Corps but he could shoot, load, clear etc a weapon.

When I was in Vietnam, I belonged to a six man team assigned to a Vietnamese District. We were in 4 Corps and no American units operated in our Province. We did have some Navy helicopter gunships for air support. The closest Americans were another small group like ours that was about 20 kilometers away. We were sent an Air Force medic to help the Vietnamese run clinics for the people. That medic wanted to be a full part of our team. He eventually came out on combat patrols with us. A typical patrol was two Americans and 12 to 20 Vietnamese. We came under unfriendly fire on a routine basis. He met the requirements for a Combat Infantryman's Badge except for the fact that he was a medic. Since he fortunately had not had to treat any of us for wounds we put him in for that CIB. A few weeks later, we received a letter from HQ MACV denying that request and suggesting that we put him in for the Combat Medic Badge. We borrowed a typewriter from the Vietnamese again and made that request. A few weeks later we received a response from HQ 7th Air Force. Not only did they deny the award but made an only slightly veiled threat that if we placed him in a role where a firefight was likely, they would consider contacting my chain of command and requesting that I be brought up on charges. I'm sure he is very proud of the CIB given to him by that little team even though he couldn't wear it on his uniform! He wasn't very proficient with his M16 when he first arrived but certainly was before he left. Every member of the military should be capable of using a standard battle rifle and a pistol to defend themselves.

I'll venture a guess, and I'm getting out on a limb here, it stems from when the Air Force became a separate branch from the Army. The Air Force tended to distance themselves from their roots. I've known some AF FAC's and SP's who have been very proficient with weapons. Personally I feel, if you wear a uniform, I think you should know how to handle a weapon, regardless of branch.

This is the basic firearm of the US Military when deployed.
In an Assymetrical Warfare battle (meaning you can be attacked at anytime by anybody anywhere in the Battle Area)...everyone needs to be trained on this very simple firearm.

For a service to systematically believe that they dont need to do this is actually beyond imagination...but I can testify to this fact with over six deployed years of watching USAF members tell me this...

When the only person guarding the gates is a USAF person doing something he was not trained for....one has to really wonder about the safety and security of everyone else behind the wire.

I think that all members of the uniformed services should be qualified on the M4/M16 platform as well as the M9.