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

Personally I believe that every service member should be qualified on a rifle and a pistol. As we have seen since 9/11 service members have been called to do things outside of their primary job. Who would have ever thought that we would have Air Force guys running ground convoys, but we did. This took Air Force guys outside the wire and put them in the line of fire. The environment of the military these days is a joint environment. Each branch has their own specialty but there are some jobs during a time of war that anybody in the DoD should be able to do, including defending the base with standard weaponry (M-4/M-16). At smaller operating locations they rely on everyone in the camp to defend it if they are attacked. This was the case of a recent deployment I had with a special operations unit. We had our own SOF security team that was in charge of our personel and equipment. There was a conventional Air Force Security Forces element there that for the U.S. compound and the conventional Air Force element there, which was about 3 times the size of our unit. If the compound was attacked the conventional Air Force plan was for all of their personel to man additional posts along the compound walls. This would include personel such as cooks who rarely touch a weapon, at least for the Air Force. Our unit had our own contingency plan and weapons for an attack because our unit was designed to self sufficient if need be. If we were attacked I would take a rifle, that I'm not currently qualified on but know how to use, in order to defend myself and my teammates. In my time on Active Duty I have only had the opportunity to qualify on the M-4 once, which wasn't for my deployment. I had to qualify on the M-4 while I worked as an augmentee for the Security Forces on my base. During the qualification there were 2 negligent discharges, both from Security Forces reservist. She was a MSgt (E-7) and had been a cop in both the Navy and Air Force but obviously wasn't fully competent with her primary weapons. During my most recent qualification, which was only on the M-9, there was a MSgt who hadn't fired a weapon since she was at boot camp. By this time in a military career you should be an expert with a weapon. Although I personally feel comfortable with weapons, I don't feel comfortable with the amount of time I get with the weapons that I am expected to use in combat. I think in order to solve this, the DoD will have to make a minimum standard for all service members that the services will have to follow. These joint standards would enable the DoD to use any service member to fill critical billets in a time of war. Regardless of our job in the military, the public views us as war fighters, which we should be trained to be.

The Army doesn't always teach that you are a rifleman first. Yes, we qual every year (as long as ammo is avail), but not everyone in the Army knows how to handle a weapon. Your picture reminds me of a time when I once witnessed (and I still don't know how she did it) a LTC Dietician somehow managed to put a magazine in an M-16 backwards. Not upside down, but backwards. After about 30 mins of tugging and shimmying, I finally got it out. She had it in there real snug.

A militarization course will train the troops how to get out a swarm of bumblebees. You don't want expert middlemen, you want suppressive fire.. until the Cavalry gets there.

If they were serious about defended you'd have machine guns.

I agree, I haven't had to zero a weapon in sometime but when I did with my personal weapon it wasn't too bad. If you think some of the comm guys were bad you should have seen some of the Intel guys I was in augmentee training. It was like they were completely scared to handle the M9 and the M4/M16. It was kind of scary to think that one day these troops might be in a position where they could have to return fire to save themselves or have our backs....

This goes back to another discussion here. The AF are not shooters, generally. They do have some shooters in them nothing on the scale of the Army and MC. It would just be a waste. In most cases there are Army and MC at the bases where AF are. A lot of their deployments aren't even to combat areas. I would recommend that all deploying Airmen going to an active war zone should be trained with an M4/M16. But if they are going Kuwait or UAE I wouldn't waste the resources.

One last thing. In the picture above, that is not an AF Weapon. Wrong handguards, the sling swivle is in the wrong place, and it is the wrong sling for the M4.

Also, The rounds are civilian.

Remember windage and elevation.

I can't speak to the current USAF situation regarding firearms training, only during my career. As an RN and then a Nurse Anesthetist, I was on mobility teams, except during my time stationed in the UK. I was required to be qualified on the handgun in use at the time. I qualified on both the 38 revolver and the 9mm Berretta. Additionally, I was able to take an enlisted spot, if there was an opening, and qualify on the M-16.
Our enlisted personnel on mobility qualified with the M-16, the officers with a handgun. Even then I believed that officers should also be qualified on the M-16. The purpose of our being qualified was for the protection of ourselves and our patients in a combat zone, not perimeter security. That was to be provided by our security forces, as it was explained to me.

The Airman should be able to be called up and defend the base or anything else that needs protecting. Period

Every service should include basic rifle/hand gun training and qualifications.

Yep, the services should take a page out of the Marines training philosophy every service member a rifleman first and foremost or at least that was the way it was and i doubt it has changed. One never knows when they will be called out to hold the line. VIRIS ET HONOS

As far as the base getting overrun scenario, with one armory on base (USAF) and no weapons prior issue except to SP's, you couldn't distribute the weapons fast enough to prevent total annihilation of the base. "Who's got the keys? Where are the freakin' keys???". So I see weapons qualified as a moot point unless weapons issue is standard. Even the Ft. Hood tragedy shows that administrative control of weapons hinders an effective timely response.

I was an Air Force marksmanship instructor from June 1965 to November 1967, voluntarily cross trained from IBM Data Processing. I was involved in the introduction of the M-16 at Dover AFB in 1965. I realized Air Force was not meant to be a ground combat force, but I felt that all personnel should be familiar enough with basic defensive weapons to defend their base and keep each other alive. Viet Nam was ramping up, and you never knew if it would be your turn to go to a war zone. I was amazed that I would have personnel come to the range who had 10, 15, even 20+ years in service and had not handled a firearm since basic training, including a base commander and senior NCOs. APs were supposed to be qualified with a .38 revolver, M-16, and riot shotgun every six months. All flight crews were supposed to be qualified with a .38 revolver yearly. The quality of some ranges I worked on was one step away from non existent. On base at Dover was a 25 yard conversion of an old fighter plane zeroing pit for pistol shooting. For M-16 we had to travel to Ft Miles near Rehobeth Beach to use an old Army pit range. At Kadena Okinawa we had to drive up island to Onna Point, to a 25 yard corral sandpit backstop with 2x3 framing that held the targets. I'm glad to see that Air Force seems to be more serious about defensive firearms training and better range facilities.

Many of the other services poke fun at the USAF for being soft. If nothing else the Air Force should give weapons proficiency training to all troops deploying to any hostile theater. What will Air Force personnel do if militants get "inside the wire?" Fighting to survive is key in theater.

I grew up with weapons, so I qualified as expert with the M-16 AND 38.

During Vietnam there were times during the Tet Offensive when Air Force bases were attacked and it was all hands on board. I also have known some surviving Air Force Helicopter gunners whom are still appreciated by Army and Marine who were in combat and were happy when their helicopters arrived to withdraw ground troops.

I'm grateful for the skill sets of all our military. For example, some of the best mechanics in the world work on our aircraft, ships, etc. And, I appreciated those who provided security for these men (and today women). Could go on - but there is no need to do so.

I also spent 3 years attached to Army. I trained military officers from all of the military services.

In my final assignment, I became very especially appreciative of the Marines who provided security for us in Belgium. To take on that commitment, they couldn't be married and were prepared to sacrifice themselves for us.

I retired from the Air Force in 1993. When I entered the Air Force, I got the job as a Security Policeman. That was the job I picked and I got it. During my career as a Security Policeman, I got the training on many weapons. I went thru AZR, which is combat training for those Security Policemen who have orders to Vietnam and Korea. My suggestion for those who want to learn about weapons that the Security Forces use, contact their Operations Superintendent.

It has been several years since I was in the Air Force and I do not know if the standards have changed, but when I went through basic training in 1984 you were just required to shoot the M-16 you did not have to qualify and you only had to do M-16 training once every four years unless you were security police or law enforcement and then you had to qualify every six months. I was an Inventory Management Specialist. On my second assignment I was in a combat rated unit and then I had to qualify on the M-16 every year. Our unit deployed all over the world in hostile environments and we were one of the first units on the ground to set up communications during Desert Storm and Desert Shield and we all knew how to use our weapons. So it was based on your MOS or the unit you were assigned to. Many MOS's in the Air Force will never see combat or a hostile theater of operations.

This mindset may likely put people into body bags. It's the 20th anniversary of the Khobar Towers bombing. I arrived a week after the event. While there I asked, "what would happen if several hundred radicals attacked the installation, are ther enough weapons for everyone to help defend?' The answer was a strait NO. There were only enough weopons for the SF people assigned.

So here we are in the 21st Century, where 4th generation, asymmetric, non-linear warfare is the rule versus the exeption. During training exercises, years after the 91 Gulf War, we were still practicing for SCUD attacks while ignoring the ever growing likelihood that a small unit could wreck havoc and shut down the flying operation. While we're hunkered down in our simulated bunkers a team could easily blast the door open, toss in a few grenades, then walk through gunning everyone down.

The problem revolves around the unrealistic training and certification requirements along with little grasp of common sense. For example; during a PACAF IG evaluation exercise, a team manning a machine gun (M-60) was given an exercise input "weapon fails to fire." The crew quickly evaluates the weapon when the IG team gives another input, "Fireing pin is broken." The crew grab another Fireing pin, replace it, then function check the weapon. The IG failed these guys for not using Tech Data. It's supposed to be a combat situation for goodness sakes!

It's my opinion that Air Force leadership are Hopliphobes. They don't trust their Airmen with weapons for personal protection, but trust those same Airmen to keep their multi-million dollar weapons systems flying.

When I deployed to Bagram I saw the same thing when I was visiting a friend who was a crew chief, others were having a hard time taking the m-4 apart and putting it back together. My friend told me a lot of the others didn't even know how to shoot it. To make matters worse when we were checking are ammo out we pulled them out of the ammo box and they were all rusted, we had to take them all apart and put new links on. Who knows how long they were like that.... So heads up.

During Desert Storm, I saw a young Airman with an obviously new M16 in the chow hall. He was in some AFSC other than 811XO. After hearing him talk to his fellows about getting the weapon, I can't remember much about the conversation now, but it was obvious he'd never had much training. I asked him if I could check the weapon, it still had that frosted look they get after deep storage. The little cardboard tube was still in the barrel they put in there before they heat seal them. He was going somewhere downrange and they at least gave him a weapon and ammo, but obviously little training. Had he fired it with the tube in the barrel, he would have hurt himself far worse than his target.

When I went through the Security Specialist Tech School (before it was the "Academy") in 1973, they told us about the Korean war, where some airbase in Korea was guarded by the Army, until the General in charge decided to pull the infantry off to take another hill or some such shit, and the base was overrun. I was told, in the USAF school, that they found the Air Police (good for breaking up fights at the club) hanging from meathooks in hangers with surveillance photos pinned to them showing them trying to use .30 carbine mags in .30 M1 Garands, which use the 30.06 round and not the much smaller .30 Carbine. So they made the Security Police during VietNam. Still haven't got it right. Probably never will because there are too many idiots with no grasp of objective reality who are in positions of authority.

During Desert Storm (I accept this is a sorry example, we simply murdered them, a great war) about 250 security forces were guarding a major war wing of about 7,000 people. One idiot, who happened to be an E9 in the Security Police, actually wanted to set up an ARMORY and have everyone off-duty (what? there is an "off-duty" in a war??) from the security force turn in their weapons. He was shot down by our Colonel, but if he'd been able, he would have cut the already undermanned armed force in half. Munitions people had M16's but there was much dithering about that, including from their bosses who didn't trust their own people. What? You'd rather have an ND or two because it COSTS MONEY to train people and rather risk getting overrun?

During the same war, i had an E8 on my base in the UK tell me I couldn't take a suppressor to Desert Storm because it was "illegal"--again, what?? We have nukes, we have napalm, machine-guns R'us are you kidding me? I had to get an opinion from the base legal office before he would 'approve" of that. Of course, he might have been miffed at being left behind....many assholes were.

The Belgians got it right. I inspected Kliene Brogel (sp) as a NATO Active Defense inspector once, and a fuel truck driver impressed me with the quality of his weapon (something in a 5.56 by FN) and the depth of his knowledge, not the textbook answer of what the range was, but what MOA he personally could do at what range.

Sir Winston Churchill said of the RAF during WWII, to the effect that every airfield should be a hive of armed airmen defending the aircraft. That isn't a quote, he probably didn't say "hive", but that's what he meant. I have to agree with the greatest military leader of the 20th century in this.

Will there ever BE a time when all we have to fight are our enemy, and not retards barely able to feed themselves who are continually waffling on about things they have no clue about?

YES, it's the AIR Force. Of COURSE, the flying things are the primary weapons, BUT:

A fucking SPACESHIP isn't much good if it's burning on the ground or the pilot is dead.

There is no excuse for sending our children to fight for us and not at least arming and training them.

If It sounds like I'm passionate about this, I am. This raked over many old coals for me. I no longer have to listen to idiots pontificate simply because they have more rank than me. Gonna do any good? Nope. At least the USAF isn't still being run like a cheap Japanese car factory. I hope.