Talk:Australian Defence Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

This page, just a stub at present, duplicates the subject area of Australian Defence Force. The two pages should be merged. Which title is preferable? Tannin

For many countries we have 'Military of ..', so I chose that. - Patrick 10:53 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

"Australian Defence Force" is its official name given to it by the Australian government... "Military of Australia" is not its name, but purely a descriptive term... so in those terms ADF is better...

I don't mind if you redirect the other way. Either way it is good, I think, that both articles have been merged. Patrick 11:13 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

I would hope that eventually we would have both pages. The ADF article would focus on the relationship of the commonwealth government and the Armed Forces, and include things like a list of Defence Ministers, procurement and supply, etc. The Military of Australia would contain an overview of capabilities, manpower, budget, etc. just as do other Military of Articles. Lou I 20:57, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Royal...????

Since when are our defence forces subject to a foreign royal family? I think the correct name would be "Australian Air Force", "Australian Navy" just like the Australian army.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.227.159 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 October 2004.

Since always. We live in a constitutional monarchy. The Queen is tops. Think why our ships are still O.H.M.S. It is RAAF and RAN. (Though maybe AA for American Auxiliary may be better substitute these days)--ZayZayEM 12:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Queen is not tops (Puts on angry face), she is irrelevant, we are only a constitutional monarchy because no better system for a republic has emerged, it doesn't mean our armed forces have to be pro-monarchist in their naming. Since when does she put her military uniform on and go out and command them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.220.140 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 27 February 2005.

Well, the official status is what counts and what is valid. We could add that this is pro forma --172.176.188.185 14:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The personnel of the Australian Defence Force honour and respect the Queen and our royal traditions. They proudly serve in Royal branches of our armed forces, and would be angry at you suggesting a name change when you have done nothing to grant you the right to comment on the issue. Potential recruits are questioned on their allegiance to the monarchy, and swear an oath to the queen. Also Australian Army regiments are known as RAR (Royal Aus Regiments) so that ties in with the RAN and RAAF. If you dont like it, dont join, or move elsewhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.8.117 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 June 2005.

Potential recruits are not questioned on their allegiance to the monarchy, nor do ADF personel necessarily honour and respect the Queen. Yet Australia is currently a monarchy, and the Queen is tops, even though she doesn't "put her military uniform on and go out and command them" (although both Prince Philip and Prince Charles have rather nice uniforms). She doesn't command the British military either. As for "If you dont like it, dont join, or move elsewhere", plenty of people join who are republicans, and someone could be told to "move elsewhere" whenever they disagreed with at least something regarding the current governmental situation - in which case everyone would have to "get out" to use the ignorant old saying which was paraphrased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.102.42.97 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 June 2005.

The Queen does actually wear a nice uniform and did serve in the British army. And with regards to Prince Philip, he actually did serve in the navy for quite some time. Xtra 01:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Australia is a British colony, what did you expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 11:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion page is not supposed to be for general discussion on the topic. The Royal Prefix to the Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Australian Navy is a known fact. Discussion on it is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.122.170 (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Military age

Military manpower - availability:
	Definition Field Listing
males age 16-49: 4,943,676 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
	Definition Field Listing
males age 16-49: 4,092,717 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
	Definition Field Listing
males: 142,158 (2005 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

PS

"To apply for a career in the Navy, Army or Air Force, applicants must be at least 16 years and 6 months old."

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/default.asp?p=160

BenAveling 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why only males are listed in the table for military age? Females are in the defence force as well, and currently the only positions not available to females are:

Navy: Clearance Divers

Army: All Royal Australian Infantry Corps All Royal Australia Armoured Corps All Royal Australian Artillery Corps Combat Engineers

Air Force: Ground Defence officers Airfield Defence Guards Aircraft Surface Finisher (due to exposure to embryotoxic chemicals)

138.77.2.131 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I Thought it was 16 84.64.14.35 (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sea King Crash

Perhaps someone would like to mention the cause of the crash; it has been in the lime light recently.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.97.66 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 April 2006.

As of today 20 March 2007 the Board of Inquiry report has not yet been published. However, it is evident from the transcripts that maintenance culture had become very slack, with many maintainers and their supervisors taking shortcuts. Presumably the BOI will have a lot to say on this subject when published, but at this point there is still no official cause for the crash. BillHall 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

% GDP?

What is the source used for the 1.9% GDP military spending figure? From numerous different sources, the numbers I come up with run between 2.6% and 2.8% of Australia's estimated 2005 GDP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.144.132.86 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2006.

Frankly considering the size of our military and the crappy second-hand equipment throughout, I think the official budget figure is highly inflated, or somebody is pocketing billions/year. The guys and gals in uniforms don't get nearly paid enough to justify the spastic budget, and our equipment certainly isn't crash hot for this day and age either to justify it. Hopefully somebody has some kind of budget breakdown lying around they could put up. I suspect foreign aid and peacekeeping eat up most of the budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations added. A paper put out by treasury in the last few years also states that Defence materiel costs actually increase at 4% per annum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.122.170 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Informal review

These are the comments that come to mind following user:Nick Dowling's comment for an informal review:

• Intro section should have a brief note on history
• East Timor section needs to be filled out
• Organisation could be expanded with more info on single service fighting formations and some history of CJFA(including the only posted-in ever incumbent)->HQ AST->JOC
• Equipment table is clumsy and breaks up article; should be converted to text and mention made of M-1AIM and AD destroyer procurements
• Bases section should be de-bullet-pointed and expanded
• Ranks chart should be moved to the main article and only a general overview para left.
• WP:MOS review

Cheers Buckshot06 05:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia

I removed this section in line with the comments from Kirill Lokshin in the article's peer review. Personally, I don't see any value in the current short paragraph or any point in expanding it given that the services have different ranks and insignia which are better covered in the dedicated article which has a prominent link in the infobox. DXRAW, why do you think that it's worth including? --Nick Dowling 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Largest in Oceania?

The article states that the ADF is the largest military in Oceania, with 51,000 full timers plus another 20,000 reservists. I may be missing something crucial here, but the corresponding article about the Military of Indonesia, the TNI, weighs in at over 360,000. What's the deal? MachiavellianMeow 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that whoever wrote that text was using a definition of Oceania which excluded Indonesia - according to the Oceania article this is one of several valid definitions of the region, and is probably the most common one in Australia. --Nick Dowling 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what the editor meant was that we are the most powerful in Oceania even with Indonesia included, cos theyre just a bunch of volunteers with old weapons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

geographically Oceania does not include Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewilly2fly (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Very short for an 90 kilobyte article. I would suggest making it a lot longer. I see inadequate lead sections a lot, even in GAs and higher, but someone should be able to get a reasonable length summary of the article without having to read through the whole thing, and 3 brief paragraphs isn't enough IMO. Richard001 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying hours

Why are the (unreferenced) flying hours of the F/A-18s and F-111s included in the infobox, right at the top? Surely if they belong in there at all it should be somewhere down with 'deployed personnel' or similar instead just under 'headquarters'. Why not include the flying hours of the C-130 and P3-C fleet while we're at it, and then the Blackhawks and Chinooks? This could go on until the infobox is filled with things like the average number of coffee breaks an Army Operator Supply has per day. Ebglider91 (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more applicable on the RAAF page since that annual flying hours can be used as a comparison between air forces, not militaries? (Bobbo9000)(121.45.178.129 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Is it time to remove this section of the info box? Not only does it refer to only one section of the ADF, it also (as previously indicated) only refers to two aircraft of the RAAF. Recommend removal due relevance and statistical inaccuracy. --Viper214 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

East Timor operations

The deployment to East Timor was perhaps the most important in ADF history since the Second World War, and is covered by two paragraphs of Operation Warden under the INTERFET article that doesn't really mention what ADF contribution was.--124.184.92.15 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Other enhancement to the article that would be useful include two sentences of history in the introduction, and possibly a comment about the latest Defence Review pushing out expensive purchases of equipment to a later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I have added a paragraph on operations in East Timor to Military history of Australia now. Please have a look and make improvements if you wish. ChoraPete (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Diggers?

One would think that seeing as the nickname "Diggers" is internationally recognised, it would appear somewhere in one of the associated pages? Would somebody care to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.199.67 (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused

can someone put the total number of military personnel in the sidebar, its all the active military + active reserves+ reserves on standby which adds up to about 105 000 total troops --Gargabook (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that standby reserves are normally counted in totals of military personnel as they're only mobalised as a last resort during emergencies. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My mum is a standby reserve and they still train its just not as much, they should be counted. And 105 000 is better than 57 000 :), but standby reserves are counted in foreign militaries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This raises an interesting point, as indeed the way militaries measure their strength differs and many nations other than Australia do include their equivilant of the Standby Reserve amoung their totals. Any other thoughts on this? That said though Standby Reserves in Australia do not do any training - my understanding is that any Standby Reservist that does a single Army Reserve Training Day (ARTD) automatically becomes part of the Active Reserve figures for that financial year. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My mum is a standby reserve, they do more than 1 training day a year, they do less than active reserves but ppl revolve from active reserves to standby reserves all the time, other countries count there standbys so why wont we? There still really important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. Standby Reservists have no training obligation... if they do any training they automatically move back into the Active Reserve for that financial year and hence are recorded in those figures. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any sources which list standby reserves when providing the figure for the total number of personnel in the ADF? The ABS Year Book Australia section on defence personnel states that "The total ADF workforce [on 1 July 2009] was 81,106," and that the standby reserves were "in addition" to this figure. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Australian Defence Almanac doesn't even mention that standby reserves exist, and the IISS Miltary Balance lists only active and reserve personnel for each country. I don't think that standby reserves should be listed as part of the total strength of the ADF as they have no training obligation, aren't part of formed units (even nominally) and are only mobilised in major emergencies. I believe that the nature of 'standby' reserves differs from country to country (eg, many reservists in Israel do no training in most years, but are members of formed units and can expect to be mobilised with their unit at very short notice). Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

but there still on the Dept of Defence payroll, so they should be included--Gargabook (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just put an extra heading in the sidebar that says total troops or personnel or something and say 105 000--Gargabook (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC), i would but dont know how to, could be my internet connection

Personally I think adding the standby reserve total to come to the 105,000 figure is overstating things. Of course we should mention the Standby Reserve and its size as it forms a significant latent capability. In reality however the ADF itself doesn't seem to include them in total troop numbers though (hence the 81,000 figure). As Nick pointed out the Australian context is different to that of some other nations, and Standby Reservists have no training commitment and are not part of formed units. If they do any training they become part of the Active Reserve figures, and if the do CFTS or deploy they get counted in the full time total (as many do). The current info box seems fine to me and I propose rewording the lead to get rid of the 105,000 figure altogether. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the figure is misleading Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

but the 105 000 is a summary of the total number of sodiers on the govts payroll, they get paid, they get uniforms they might not train as much but they still are soldiers, they change from active to standby all the time. There needs to be a title on the sidebar with just the total number of soldiers in the defence force, and since actives go to standbys and stanbys go to active all the time the figure can never really be accurate day in day out, the fact is in australia there are 105 000 troops on govt payroll so that should be represented in there somewhere :)--Gargabook (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that states that there are 105,000 personnel in the ADF? As I've explained above, all the sources on this topic I'm aware of don't as they either separate members of the standby reserve from active and reserve personnel or exclude them altogether (to these sources I'd also add the most recent Defence Annual Report - Appendix 7 (available here) also states that there were 81,106 members of the ADF on 1 July 2009 and also appears to exclude standby reservists from all of its figures) If you can't provide a source for this, it has no place in the article, particularly as this is a featured article and all material needs to be accurate and backed by good-quality sources to retain this status. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My sources are whatever the sources that say the reserve (standby and active) are almost 50 000 all together, ok you dont need to put 105 000 as the total troop number put 80 000 but put a referance to the fact there there is 105 000 thousand personell in the adf its disrespectful to leave out 25 000 soldiers who would defend this country at the snap of the fingers

PS. Nick you seem to know a lot about the defence force im doing a report on protocols for an assignment, would you be able to give me a website that tells me basic protocal in situations that the army do (i cant find anything, probs security reason) or if u know wat to do can you tell me

sorry forgot to sign last comment --Gargabook (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing the figure then - it needs to be backed by a published source, and as I've indicated above the published sources do not include members of the standby reserve in this way. The number of standby reservists is in the article in all the appropriate places. In regards to your assignment question, I'd be happy to help (though I suspect that Anotherclown knows more about this topic than I do), but can you please be more specific? Are you looking for information on the Army's main tasks? Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

im new to wiki so dont know if u cant message each other, but what does the army do if there attacked by the enemy that has much more numbers, how do they retreat, or do they fly a few choppers in to scare them, and what do smoke flares do in battle, what colour for what action ect --Gargabook (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

and can you please work into their that there is 105 000 total troops, it feels bad that a 25%--Gargabook (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC) of the guys that would die for us are being neglected

I'll reply to that question on your talk page. As for the 105,000 figure; it's misleading to lump this category of inactive reservists in with full-time personnel and 'active' reservists and this isn't done in the published sources we need to use to support all material in the article. Moreover, you're missing the point that the numbers of standby reserve personnel are in the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)