News>Air Force rolls out new rifle qualification course
Photos
Air Force basic trainee Zachary Browning, with the 324th Training Squadron, Flight 044, reloads between shooting practice rounds at the firing range at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas, Nov. 22, 2011. Airmen are now required to take a new intensive Air Force Rifle Qualification Course. (U.S. Air Force photo/Alan Boedeker)
Maj. Gerald Stevenson, the 52nd Comptroller Squadron commander, moves forward to engage a target during the new weapons qualification course at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, Oct. 13, 2011. Air Force leaders modernized the rifle qualification course by adding movement while engaging targets to better train and equip Airmen for today’s fight. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Dillon Davis)
by Tech. Sgt. Joseph Sanchez
37th Training Support Squadron
12/6/2011 - JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas (AFNS) -- Airmen taking the new Air Force Rifle Qualification Course are finding themselves learning more than just basic marksmanship skills.
Changes requiring more intensive weapons training were published in September by the Air Force Security Center and officially took effect Dec. 1.
"Our combatant commanders identified over the last 10 years that we needed to move away from the Cold War-era style of qualification and give our Airmen quality training," said Master Sgt. Scott Brown, the U.S. Air Forces in Europe combat arms program manager at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. "More and more Airmen are actively engaging the enemy down range, and they need to have a higher standard of weapons training."
Although there are numerous differences between the new and the old courses, the most significant change is the emphasis on combat engagement and developing shooter survivability skills.
Previously, the "just-in-time" training prior to a deployment or permanent change of station ensured Airmen had the general skills of weapons familiarization, said Senior Master Sgt. Aaron Thieken, the 37th Training Support Squadron superintendent here. The course gave Airmen an understanding of what parts went where, how the weapon functions, or the cycle of operation, and the basic shooter fundamentals -- sight picture, breath control and trigger squeeze.
"Those skills are still the building block of any weapons qualification course," Thieken said. "However, as we continue to support contingency operations with more and more Air Force personnel performing missions outside the wire, it was imperative that our training evolve to meet the changing environment."
The new course incorporates target acquisition, threat discrimination, multiple-threat engagement, and surviving weapon malfunction and stoppages.
The major changes in the qualification course include more stringent time constraints, required wear of a combat helmet and body armor, movement during fire, and different firing tactics, said Staff Sgt. Marc Rodriguez, a 52nd Security Forces Squadron combat arms instructor at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. Also, there are now three skill assessments, or tables, in which some Airmen will participate.
Table 1 encompasses the positions currently in the rifle qualification course. Table 2 involves new movements and short-range marksmanship. Table 3 involves night firing and is primarily for career fields where Airmen require advanced weapons training, like security forces.
As an example of the new course's difficulty, Rodriguez said that during the move and shoot portion, Airmen will have seconds to advance to the firing line, shoot while standing, crouch, and shoot while kneeling. Rounds not fired within the time limit don't count toward qualification.
"There are time constraints on all the firing positions to increase your heart rate and make you nervous," said Tech. Sgt. Robert Duerr, a 52nd SFS combat arms instructor. "At no point downrange will you be shooting at a stationary, small black target with a circle on it. This training will definitely make the individual more competent and confident in their handling of the weapon."
As a result of the training changes, the number of rounds fired and the additional qualification stages increase the length of classroom training as well as time on the range. Bases that have already used the new curriculum have found the course now takes 10 to 12 hours to complete.
Growing pains are expected with the new course, Duerr said. However, the training is intended to hone Airmen's weapons skills to provide a better equipped and trained warfighter to combatant commanders downrange. The training may be difficult, but it is not impossible.
Preparation for the course is essential, Thieken said. He recommended Airmen brush up on weapons training by reading their Airman's Manual.
"Instructors will teach you everything you need to know about the weapon system, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared," he said.
(Staff Sgt. Daryl Knee of the 52nd Fighter Wing Public Affairs contributed to this story.)
Comments
4/29/2012 8:03:41 PM ET I would like to comment on this every one knows things are always subject to change are you afraid that you may not qualify suck it up and push on. You may need to practice we swore in to oath for protection over our country did we not. If you were to be engaged in a shoot out or when alot of you would not be comfortable because you will freeze. Look ladies and gentleman I am from the game we were in combat I was at the 820th for a while and I am telling you this training is for a purpose you people say that you tired of being looked at some whimps now here is are opportunity to prove them wrong. The marines the army and the navy have been doing this training for a while and its time we suit up and pass the test. We have money so purchase the weapon. Spend time on a firing range practice this stuff and go over it. It just like the new changes to the PT test it is the same thing. A lot of you are afraid because maybe you cant fire and your worried about your career that is understable
Parham, Eglin AFB florida
1/17/2012 11:21:05 PM ET I just did this course today... interesting. First of all, this is the 5th time I've shot and the first time under the new qualifications. Mass confusion on what folks were targeting led to a lot of safety issues, which I could see blow up into a major incident someday. Does the entire AF need this? HELL NO! But this is weak stuff for what civil engineers really need... What ever happened to integrated base defense?
SrA, Ellsworth
12/19/2011 8:26:22 PM ET I graduated BMT at the end of October and I wish I went through this course. It will be much more practical and useful than the sit and shoot we did. I'm very happy about this change.
Rodney Tanner, Minnesota
12/15/2011 9:44:18 AM ET All I see is a accident waiting to happen. ND's and people getting injuried, plus they aren't even wearing the kit that they should be. And the AF is attempting this type of training on a standard AF CATM range. That is a no-go. The people that need this training are few in number. They should send thm to Tiger Swan MAGPUL DYNAMICS USTC or the like. Quit wasting money on something that won't work and it wasting time and money
Will, NE
12/14/2011 10:51:30 PM ET Just took this course today and in my opinion the amount of time it took was ridiculous. 14 hours in total. We were told there is a 80-100 percent failure rate in the new course. I don't think it will last due to this high failure rate. There's more to this new course than what the article tells you. There are some good aspects of it, but overall there are issues here.
JE, MO
12/13/2011 6:53:16 AM ET Maj SWA: well your response shows that you do not understand the basic concepts of combat operations or modern warfare tactics. Not once is the word sniper mentioned in my comments, but it proves that your perception of what should be done in combat is skewed. Oh and by the way the incident that you spoke of happened at Kabul and it was an active shooter situation not a combat action. Could have more training proper equipment helped those brave people maybe. But I was there and neither were you so don't be quick to judge their actions.
Mo, MidSouth
12/12/2011 2:41:32 PM ET Mo, you need to broaden your horizons and understand that not only battlefield airmen go outside the wire. The idea that warfare is restricted to seeking out the enemy and killing him is so 18th century. Today's airmen are working routinely in non-permissive environments doing 100s of tasks other than kill the bad guy. If and when they are engaged, they need to be comfortable with their weapons, communicate with their buddies and find options to get out of harms way. Being a sniper is rarely the best option. That's a job for...well snipers. Case in point: 8 US Air Force advisors died in Bagram earlier this year and only one even got a single shot off. And you think being a better aim is what they needed?
Maj, SWA
12/12/2011 7:02:32 AM ET This is definitely a move in the right direction. The Air Force as a whole will never be a shooter first and job second. We will remain job first and shooter second. There is nothing wrong with that; however, it is time to have smarter weapons operators. I've been a ground combat instructor and the level of knowledge on our weapons is truly sad. Airman have been begging for more, here it is. Thank you, Air Force.
Jason, Dobbins
12/11/2011 11:12:58 PM ET Maj SWA is right, this training should only be provided to folks who actually are going to be engaging directly with the enemy, definitely spec ops, TACP and cops. Budget is tight these days.
Common Sense, USA
12/10/2011 2:11:32 PM ET ITC ref your comment: We're told to take cover and let SFS handle it. You better tell whoever is giving you that misguided leadership nugget they need to get a clue. You think Maj Hassan at Ft Hood was checking qualificaiton badges before firing aimed shots? Workplace violence, aka internal active shooter threat, is the most compelling threat we face today. Protect yourself. Also, SF numbers continue to be affected by deployments and cuts. Big blue prioritizes what the base cops protect so everyone needs to learn to protect their own stuff.
Jerry, Seattle
12/10/2011 3:24:52 AM ET We're told to take cover and let SFS handle it.And if the SFS aren't there, Go ahead and cower under a desk waiting to die . I'd prefer to cower under a desk atleast cuddling a M16 in the meantime just in case the SFS were too busy somewhere else..
CD, WA
12/9/2011 6:39:05 PM ET Practice, practice, practice is the only way that people will be become familiar, confident and something resembling competence in handling firearms. The Air Force has been pushing this warrior ethos thing with the creed and PT for a couple of years. Unless the Air Force invests resources into periodic and often firearms training, then the whole 'warrior' mentality is just lip service.
SSgt Arno Trefflich, east coast
12/9/2011 4:25:09 PM ET Maj SWA: I can tell by your reply that your AFSC is not a Battlefield Airmen one. And your depth of knowledge in regards to tactics appears to be limited. I have gained my tactical experience from many years of deploying. Not just one go around as part of a PRT. If Airmen go outside the wire not expecting to engage the enemy the way you think they should ... Well, let's just say they are behind the power curve the moment they leave the FOB. And that is a very bad position to be in. This course of fire will serve those that need it well as a stepping stone to better training. But like one person said, 90 percent of the AF doesn't need the training.
Mo, MidSouth
12/9/2011 3:48:56 PM ET This is long overdue For those of you who say most AFSCs never go OTW, I respectfully say you are not aware of everything going on in theatre. I speak as a bean counter who has been there and done that. Speaking as a civilian cop, I say the more we handle and become familiar with weapons, the safer we will all be. I only concern is will they fund the ammo? We're already not shooting on schedule due to lack of ammo.
Bean Counter, TN
12/9/2011 2:55:35 PM ET Mo, the Airmen that get this training are not training to seek out the enemy and kill him. They are training so in the unlikely event they get engaged they can shoot, move and communicate to get off the X while the enemy has his head down because of the rounds we are sending his way regardless of how accurate they are. Airmen that need to know how to shoot precisely get training on how to do that. Stop watching Hollywood movies and thinking that makes you a tactical expert.
Maj, SWA
12/9/2011 11:31:36 AM ET Maj SWA: I want to deploy with you. Just spray and pray in regards to enemy contact, yeah that will work. Anyone who advocates that course of action doesn't belong OTW. There is a time and place for supressive fire, but a guy with a M-4 and a couple of hundred rounds is not it. It's the right move, but they should narrow who gets the training. A large portion of AF personnel never go outside the wire.
Mo, MidSouth
12/9/2011 11:10:15 AM ET With so many Airmen working essentially Army jobs, why not just merge the Air Force back into the Army and have more Army Air Corps Airmen qualify for infantry jobs.
Jerry, Oklahoma
12/9/2011 10:30:26 AM ET I think this is a great thing for our Airmen. The basics just don't cut it anymore. We are engaging more and more as the article says and we need to be comfortable with our weapons before deploying instead of the rapid fire delivery-pardon the expression-and rush through.
Vince Grimes, RAF Lakenheath
12/9/2011 10:04:50 AM ET I think this has to be added to the top 10 dumb ideas. I'm not sure who They talked to. But I'm willing to bet 90 percent of AFSCs don't actively engage the enemy. You're not going to find a Crew Chief or Personnelist or Aircrew Life Support troops outside the wire. We're told to take cover and let SFS handle it. Giving advanced training like movement during fire I can already see leading to a training accident and someone dead. At this point they might as well send EVERYone through SFS tech school prior to reporting to their AFSC tech school. Counting down the days till we go back to the Army Air Corp...
ITC, Westover ARB
12/9/2011 8:01:05 AM ET @Caveman - you have a great eye. You should cross-train and join the Security Forces Fasion Police flight. You could be their Flight Chief.
BS, KS
12/9/2011 7:48:13 AM ET It is sad that the "We don't need guns" AF mentality still exists. Anyone in todays AF can find themselves in a spot where they will need a gun, even an Aircraft Mechanic...and they should know how to use it beyond knowing which end the bullet comes out.
CD, WA
12/8/2011 11:33:05 PM ET This sounds excellent. The CATM runs out of bullets all the time as it is for boring cold war 9mm training. Its been this way for years and years so where the bullets going to come from for this?
TSgt Picka, MDL
12/8/2011 10:07:07 PM ET It only took 10 years to come to this conclusion? This is what kills me about the Air Force. It takes forever for reality to set in and for something to change. The Air Force mentality of level and down range was pretty dumb if you consider the big picture. It's nice to see we'll finally be taught how to actually handle the weapon aside from pointing in one direction and no where else.
Matt, Buckley AFB CO
12/8/2011 9:14:24 PM ET LJ - comments take a long time to get approved because the PA screeners make sure it's PC first. I've had comments that never make it to the article. Worthless system to have comments but not allow all. Kambrin - I have taken an M9 from an amn after he turned sweeping the room asking if he had armed correctly. He never got to carry after that when I was around.
Load, Vegas
12/8/2011 5:45:11 PM ET Aimed shots in combat? Only if you have excellent cover. Most engagement requires shotgun-style skills as General LeMay advocated. And most ammunition is expended to make the other guy keep his head down.
Ret MSgt, St. Paul MN
12/8/2011 3:25:35 PM ET More advanced training is great. More frequently would even be better. However, this will be useless in the most likely threat scenario for a huge portion of our force. In an active shooter scenario at my home installation, my family and I are only targets because of the prohibition against me having a firearm on the installation. Regardless of my skill, which I believe is well above average, the only recommendation I get is duck and cover like a coward. As a member of the Profession of Arms, this is a disgrace. I don't know that me and my family are protected when on the installation. However, I know for a fact that we are protected off the installation because I make it a personal responsibility.
Realistic, CONUS
12/8/2011 1:52:40 PM ET Initial qualification training is great, but has continuation training been resourced? Little value if our Airman only shoot 50 rounds every 2 years.
NL, MacDill AFB
12/8/2011 11:43:38 AM ET Much needed. The good ole days of never being near the front line are gone. The world has changed. There are no front lines any more. Practically anyone could be hostile. That's the nature of an insurgency. If the program gives just one Airman the skills needed to place rounds on target and survive, it will be well worth it.
Retired MSgt, Oregon
12/7/2011 2:57:49 PM ET Something needs to be said here about the necessity of our people to have familiarity and experience with firearms as individuals well in advance of anyone joining military service. If the first time that the Airmen described in the article are picking up a rifle is in their AF training, that is a HUGE part of the problem in and of itself and is in large need of correction in society. Our Founders knew well the importance of having a nation of armed citizens as expressed by the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, which itself draws roots from the establishment of archery as a national sport and required duty of the citizenry by Edward II in 1363. It is our civic duty as individuals for ourselves and our families to be armed for defense of ourselves our family and property and liberty--neglect of this duty is not only perilous, but also shameful. In the mastery and peaceable use of firearms is the instilling of the values of discipline confidence diligence responsibi
Bill Cyrus, Painted Post NY
12/7/2011 2:04:33 PM ET Why does it take so long for comments to be posted?
LJ, Oklahoma
12/7/2011 1:39:15 PM ET As someone who has done both the standard AF qualification course and had other training prior to actively engaging the enemy, I can say the previous AF qualification training was essentially worthless. At no point have I ever precisely aimed a shot while in a firefight. The name of the game is lead downrange. Aiming is much less important that sending something in their direction. This is a welcome change. AF personnel have no business carrying around a weapon following nothing more than a weapons familiarization course.
Maj, SWA
12/7/2011 10:31:41 AM ET You either know how to shoot or you don't. If you can take a shot that turns someone's brain into a pink mist, that is a question. I took my basic in 72 and only twice in the next 20 years did the Air Force decide I needed more training. A waste of time. My job was Aircraft Maintenance jet engine one and two. Not carring a gun. get back to basics.
Edward Kline, retired
12/7/2011 8:42:43 AM ET About friggin' time...
Ron Sliga, Gautier MS
12/7/2011 8:28:18 AM ET "Our combatant commanders identified over the last 10 years that we needed to move away from the Cold War-era style of qualification and give our Airmen quality training." Why has it taken ten years?
RetiredNow, Eglin AFB
12/7/2011 2:29:23 AM ET I am a shooting enthusiast. After completing basic training, I was disappointed in the weapons training depth that I received. To hear that it is going to be more involved makes me feel more that my fellow airmen will be more competent with a firearm, especially those who have never previously used one.
Kambrin Drew, Nellis AFB
12/7/2011 1:48:34 AM ET A small improvement, but about all that could be done with current AF qualification ranges. Really what is needed is more training ontop of Warrior week in basic infantry combat skills for everyone not just SF. 100 Airman who went through a Qual course are just 100 individuals with a rifle; 100 Airmen trained in basic infantry tactics is a fighting force.The AF needs to ditch the utterely obsolete fascination with Chem Warfare during ORI's, etc, and shift to a more AB defense scenerio.
CD, WA
12/6/2011 10:10:59 PM ET I think this course will be great for a very small portion of the AF. Identify those folks and put them through this new curriculum. But for the majority of us we don't need this. Waste of time and resources if you ask me. IMHO of course.
LJ, Oklahoma
12/6/2011 5:09:21 PM ET Truly awesome...ACU Helmet cover DCU body armor ABUs underneath.
