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 has different requirements. There is a qualification standard. A sharp shooter badge is available for those that meet that requirement. Military police have higher shooting requirements. The airmen on Mobility status for rifle training as well as 45's. Don't generalize the Air Force requirements from an Army perspective!

At one time the Air Police old term in the fifties went to school at Parks Air Force base for training which included legal Spe Ops and warfare courses was 6 months long i personally went from May to Dec of 1955 we were well trained by Army and Marine personnel ' I was glad that i did get that training as in the fifties and sixties we were in some hot spots . I do agree that the Air Force should get more weapons training and be proficient in its use and care.

Well if I wanted to be like the Marines or Army I would have joined those services. However not all Airmen are knuckleheads. I had to carry a gun and we did are own perimeter checks and guard duty. As well as carrying a gun when issuing munitions to other units. So if you don't agree with the Air Force standards why did you switch services. You should have stayed Army people like you are arrogant and think they know it all. I sure am glad I would never have to work beside you. However thank you for your service anyways. We all belong to the same Armed Forces. Retired AF AMMO

I agree, all members of military should at least be taught the basics of weaponry in case of an attack I did not know they did not qualify with weapons.

The Air National Guard provides primary weapon training during annual training, and requires primary weapon qualification before deploying whether a weapon will be carried or not at the deployed location.

I believe all military members should have at least a moderate proficiency in ight weapons. Look up Chief Master Sergeant Richard Etchberger who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor as a radar technician. He and a group of other AF technicians died defending a remote location that our military said "was impossible" to over-run but we under estimated the North Vietnamese soldier. History has proven over and over how underestimation of the enemy leads to disaster. What about the Tet of 1968 when the Viet Cong were attacking and over running our airbases? Guess who was on the perimeter fighting back? Air Force personnel. You should not count on always having the grunts protecting the base. Worst mistake we can make is believing that an airman will never need to shoot a rifle. I believe everyone in the service should have a moderate level of competency with the M4, a pistol and a belt fed machine gun. They don't have to be an expert but should be able to be competent enough to engage the enemy successfully when necessary.

the cook does not spend all day feeding chickens and harvesting parsley. a taxi driver does not spend all day doing motor maintenance. the coast guard does not have aircraft carriers and the marines don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles.

the usa president does not personally command a tank.

i qualified on the rifle range. all my shots neatly grouped inside a narrow circle, all more or less touching each other just left of center. someone had to help load it. i fired it.

i was a weather tech. early retirement with disabilities. didn't finish all four years. inredible surgery saved my face but i had wires holding my skull together for a year.

i did not care that my surgeons wore no stars. anywhere. civilians.

they put my face back together well enough.

that's why we are loyal to the mission, we the people, not me me me. IMHO

I was in the Air Force from 1978 to 1982 and I had to qualify on the M-16 when I got orders to Germany. I served on an Air Base for four years. We had an Army unit stationed with us. They were great soldiers and it was an honor to serve with them even though we were different branches of the Armed Forces. I had my job and they had theirs, We in the Air Force have great respect for the Army unit stationed with us.

I felt the same way about the Navy at first, but I learned that the Navy does indeed have ground forces and a need for ongoing small arms training. I spent time in a MIUW unit which is a mix of expeditionary warfare and ground combat. Our job was to prevent a Pearl Harbor style attack on friendly ports no matter where they were. We were also capable of defending our campsite and sonar nets. We could be completely independent of any base if necessary, and deploying the net simply required enough manpower to carry the sonobuoys and the small boat. A small campsite/command post could be set up within range of the sonobuoys.
Also surface Sailors would qualify with 50 caliber mounts to defend against hostile small craft and incoming anti ship missiles, the idea being to shred those before they reached attack range.

When I was stationed at Ramstein AFB in the early 1980s as a young SGT, my boss was a TSGT who told me many times that if the Soviet Hordes attacked over the Fulda Gap, we would be evacuated with the dependents. While it's true that we had no combat training as computer programmers, I think he was deluding himself but nonetheless he never qualified on any weapon outside of basic training. I, on the other hand, qualified expert on M-16 and .38, and had no illusions about evacuating.