This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Australian Air Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 31, 2021. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The reason I rated it as a "Start" is that it could be much more than what it currently is. Just my humble opinion. -- Looper5920 13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the Hawk's country of origin from EU to Britain. The EU flag should be used only for European multi-national companies/programs such as the Airbus KC-30. CMarshall ( talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is not intirely correct. It should be updated as nothing has been desided officaly as to the replacement of the fleet. Sorry for adding the new section (Fleet retirment and replacements), should have put it in the future equipment section (i'm only new to all this) -- Powderhound11 09:56, 17 October, 2006 (UTC)
It stands for Joint Strike Fighter.
Acquisition of 24 F/A-18F Block II as an interim replacement for the F-111 was announced today. Text updated with link to media release. Dbromage 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Could we get a list of the munitions utilised by RAAF aircarft? eg. JDAMs, GBUs, Harpoons etc Htra0497 15:04, 11 November 2006 (AEST)
Why were the aircraft photos removed by User:Imgi12? I think they added a lot to the page. Mlouns 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed Robert Little's name from the list of WWI aces. He never served in any Australian formation. He served in the Royal Naval Air Service. -- Catstroke
If anyone is still following the yes/no/maybe/wrong aeroplane/too expensive/unavailable debate in Canberra re the US denying F-22s for the RAAF then the following link should be an eye-opener. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/10/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated/index.php -- Catstroke
I read in Australian press that the USAAF has halved it's orders for the F-35 but have not been able to confirm this. I left a similar note in the F-35 talk pages but no one has replied. This is very serious for us. Does anyone know more? Brettr 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the history of the RAAF Roundel pretty interesting and believe a paragraph on the subject to be worthy of inclusion. I intend to put it at the bottom of the page, and move the pictures of the Roundel. Any objections? RP Bravo 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've prepared some userboxes for different Air Forces freaks - if you would like to use it, feel free to copy & paste following code in your Babel Tower or another place:
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFhv}}
or
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFlv}}
First one is high visibility roundel (and colours), second one is low-vis - see examples below. -- Piotr Mikołajski 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This user edits RAAF related articles |
This user edits RAAF related articles |
Does anyone know what Rudd is intending to do, regarding the finilisation of the purchase of the f-35, potentially switching to the f-22 and/or cancelling the super hornets? This is in light of the F-22 article that says australia's (then) opposition is in favour of purchasing some F-22's. So basically, is Rudd going to put the pressure on to get some Raptors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 ( talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Not true, a new edit in the f-22 article claims that the new defence minister is thinking of attempting to acquire the plane in lieu of the super hornets, with the possibility of even investigating russian built planes mentioned in the cited article, so i think the future equipment section should be edited, especially since the f-35 looks far from scheduled for delivery to the RAAF right now. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.165.107.1 (
talk)
14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but there is no concrete order for a set ammount of F-35's at the moment, so I find it hard to believe that they are scheduled for delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 ( talk) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new article called Current Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft, I also added a link to it under the "Current strength" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezstar ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How come this article does not have a section like this, as articles about commercial airlines typically do? Certainly some of the events are notable. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, the biggest jet crash in Australia's history perhaps?
Although Confrontation was primarily a ground war, and the RAAFs role in it quite limited, does anyone else think it would be appropriate to include a paragraph on the RAAF during this conflict? I would add the material myself however I don't really have suitable knowledge or sources on this topic. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry folks, just felt it needed to be pointed out that the introduction has an error or perhaps is unclear in meaning. It mentions the RAAF was formed in 1921, then claims it was engaged in World Wars I ( ~ and II). Although of coarse Australia was heavily involved in the first World War's air war, the Australian Air Force and later the ROYAL Australian Air Force was not.
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, kindest regards
Walt Outofthewoods ( talk) 01:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Uninformed wikipedian beginner here, my apologies in advance: Isn't the motto more accurately translated as "Through Adversity to the Stars"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.2.150 ( talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The article presently contains an image of a Boeing 707. See HERE. I understand that the last RAAF 707 was retired in 2008. To avoid conveying a misleading impression about the current status of the 707, I suggest an alternative image is used, or the caption changed to indicate the historical nature of the photograph. Dolphin51 ( talk) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The South African Air Force also claims to be the second oldest air force in the world. Which one is it? 121.216.18.128 ( talk) 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to the date of formation as an air force. SAAF was formed on 1 February 1920. RAAF was formed on 31 March 1921. So, it's hard to say. I think this subject requires more research and investigation. SCΛRECROW CrossCom 10:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
the thing is when you looking into the RAAF history is that it was once know by at least 3 different names the AFC, AAF, RAAF and a few before others the 31 march 21' (origanaly the 1st was planned but they did't want to be knowen as a joke)was when the AAF was formed the prefix royal wasent added until AUG that year "Final approval to establish the Australian Flying Corps was promulgated in Military Order No.570 on 22 October 1912, with orders placed for two B.E.2a, two Deperdussin and a Bristol Boxkite to equip the new air arm"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.117.114 ( talk) 10:33, 15 August 2010
Just wandering should not the F-111 be given some more information regarding the problems and difficulties faced by the air force. From what I know these air craft are still in hangar's/limited use and should therefore be listed as still being actively used or at the very least be referred to as F-111(to be phased out).
Thanks in advance AussieSkeptic82 ( talk) 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
F-111 final flight was 3 December, they will never fly again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrteeve ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed the 'Procurement review' section as the topic it covers (the 2007-2008 review of whether to go ahead with the F/A-18Fs and F-35s) is now outdated as the review endorsed these purchases and they've since gone ahead (albeit partially in the case of the F-35). Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
in this model it cannot take an Australian tank (bushmaster i think) due to the cargo door not opening upwards this is different to the last model (C-123H) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.148.38 ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Midnight Blue has a lot more white in it and is lighter than Navy Blue. Navy Blue is very close to black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.135 ( talk) 06:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The US Air Force included their official colours on their wiki page, like this: |colors= Ultramarine Blue and Air Force Yellow [1] and I was wondering if the RAAF had official colours as well? Brandon.hargraves ( talk) 05:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello, I was wondering what picture we can use in the current aircraft table? I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RAAF_IAI_Heron_on_the_ground.jpg because there weren't any RAAF Herons on wikipedia, but apparently there is an obtainable free version of the RAAF Heron we can use. If somebody could aid me in my search for a free image of a RAAF Heron, then that would be greatly appreciated. If we cannot find an alternative, will we be able to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IAI_Heron_1_in_flight_2.JPEG? It is in use by the US however. Brandon.hargraves ( talk) 05:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't Vietnam count as an "Engagement"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexysexy ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just, hopefully accurately, added the two Australian F-35s to the list of current RAAF aircraft. It appears they they've been accepted into service given that they're about to start being used for training flights, but I can't find a source which explicitly says this. Nick-D ( talk) 03:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@ FOX 52: I've just reverted the article back to the version before your most recent changes. While I agree that the aircraft table would benefit greatly from a revamp and appreciate your efforts, the material you were adding contained a lot of mistakes. For instance, Australia has ordered 72 F-35s, not 100 (the government has an intention to order 100 eventually, but hasn't signed up to do so); 16 AP-3s are in service, not 4 ( [6]); 8 P-8s have been ordered, not 12 (though options for a further 4 have been taken out); and 3 CL-600s are in service, not 1. Nick-D ( talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: If there's an issue with a few number(s) discrepancies, off of different sources (mine: flightglobal’s 2015 World Air Forces report) then simply change what you think needs fixing. A full roll back accomplishes zero, and puts a few dead links back in play. Since you agree the section needed a face lift, I’m going restore my updates, with your numbers (which were 4 out of 16 aircraft) not really “major mistakes” and we'll work it from there. On a side note I’m for the table(s), because one just about every military article uses them, and two I think it's an easy and concise way for the reader to obtain the information they seek. - FOX 52 ( talk) 05:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Gday. This was recently changed from 18 to 16 by IP 101 here [7] but then reverted by another editor. As far as I'm aware though there are only a total of 71 F/A-18 As and Bs as four have crashed. Indeed this is stated in the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet article which states: "Australia had 71 Hornets in service in 2006, after four were lost to crashes."[34] which is referenced to: Crick, Darren. "ADF Aircraft Serial Numbers RAAF A21 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A/B Hornet." adf-serials.com. Retrieved: 31 December 2006. (which has now moved to here [8]). This ref confirms that two As have crashed from the original total of 57 (leaving 55) and two B models from the original total of 18 (leaving 16). The article previously stated that the RAAF currently has 55 As and 18 Bs which equals 73 not 71 so was therefore wrong. Also our article McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service confirms a total of 71 following four crashes and provides the details of the four lost with citations listing the details of those incidents. As such the World Air Forces 2015 source looks to be wrong in this case if it does indeed state 18 Bs in service. As such I have restored the edits. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
On further looking, there is another very interesting source available here, which covers the details of the loss of these four aircraft in detail: Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (2007). Sifting through the evidence : RAAF F-111 and AF/A-18 aircraft and crew losses (PDF). Canberra: Royal Australian Air Force. OCLC 271545224.. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
AEW&C or AWACS is fine either way. Now the F-18B is a different story the RAAF website only speaks in general terms of the “F/A-18A/B” of what they “can” do operationally. The B model was intended as a conversion/trainer aircraft –according to Dennis R. Jenkins book F/A-18 Hornet: A Navy Success Story (pg. 19) Mcgraw-Hill, 2000; ISBN 0071346961 he states the TF-18A two-seat training version of the F/A-18A fighter, was later re-designated F/A-18B – This article specifies “Australia's air force inventory also includes 55 F/A-18A fighters and 16 F/A-18B trainers”. Hence the larger number of 55 A’s for actual combat versus only 16 B’s which you’d normally use for training. RAAF Museum cook point mentions in December 1988, the last dual-seat Hornet, A21-118, was delivered, each squadron is allocated one dual-seaters, the ARDU operates one, and the remainder equip 2OCU for their primary role of type conversion (trainer). World Air Force 2008 refers to the RAAF F/A-18B as trainer. Here on the US Navy website also states "The B model is used primarily for training". Wikipedia's article F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service has sourced text stating “order of 75 Hornets comprised 57 single-seat "A" variant fighters and 18 two-seat "B" variant operational training aircraft”. It's a difference between primary and secondary roles. - FOX 52 ( talk) 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@ FOX 52: - I still disagree with your latest amendments, and with you changing this yet again without waiting for consensus to develop like AR suggested. My objective is based on the following points:
As such I propose the As and Bs be both listed together under the combat aircraft heading (where they were previously until changed without discussion by Fox 52 in Dec 14
[15]), the numbers of As and Bs be split and specified, and a note included (as it was recently) describing the As as "multirole" and the Bs as "multrole / conversion training" or some similar variation per the below example.
Proposed entry #1
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combat Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | multirole multirole [1] / conversion trainer [2] [3] |
F/A-18A F/A-18B |
55
[4] 16 [4] |
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
@ AustralianRupert: and @ Nick-D:, as you have participated in this discussion to date I also request your further opinion about this specific proposal. If the issue is one of primary vs secondary role then we can switch the order to "conversion trainer / mult-role". Of cse I am more than happy for some other proposal to be put forward by you or someone else; however, my bottom line is that placing the F/A-18Bs under the "Training Aircraft" section is inaccurate and is not supported by the most appropriate sources (i.e. the official RAAF and government auditor description of them which is "multirole" and "combat" aircraft). BTW as an example of how these aircraft are treated elsewhere see the Spanish Air Force article which lists all models of their F/A-18s together under a very similar "Combat Aircraft" heading. Equally List of military aircraft of the United States which lists all models (A/B/C/D) under the "fighter" heading. Similar groupings occur with air forces operating C and Ds - see Kuwait Air Force, Finnish Air Force and List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force for instance. Indeed the RAAF article seems to be the odd one out. Anotherclown ( talk) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
the F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service article has sourced text stating “order of 75 Hornets comprised 57 single-seat "A" variant fighters and 18 two-seat "B" variant operational training aircraft”. The C/D variants are a moot point because the "D" model was built with the intention as a multi-role aircraft having a WSO in the back seat, validated by this article. Furthermore 3 of the 4 sources call the RAAF F/A-18B a trainer, and the RAAF website disclaimer notes " we take no responsibility for content inaccuracies". The form below should just be fine to cover all bases
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trainer Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | advanced trainer | F/A-18B | 16 | Can also perform a combat role |
- FOX 52 ( talk) 05:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combat Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | multirole |
F/A-18A F/A-18B |
55
[1] 16 [1] |
Used for operational conversion |
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combat Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | fighter/attack | A/B | 71 |
My take on the discussion to this point:
Propose change role to Aerial warfare, as this includes all military functions, including air combat, transport, ISR, and other air force functions. Garuda28 ( talk) 16:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Australian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Royal Australian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royal Australian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this article is very much about the RAAF, I reckon there should be at least a line stating that the other arms of the ADF operate rotary wing aircraft. Casual readers come here to find out about the aviation capabilities of the ADF, as well as the RAAF. Perhaps; 'The Royal Australian Navy also operates XX helicopters through its Fleet Air Arm, and the Australian Army operate XX helicopters to support their operations.' Whether this goes in the body text or the See Also, I'm not sure.
Thoughts?
118.209.228.229 ( talk) 22:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@ FOX 52:@ Markdukes21:@ Ian Rose: per WP:TWITTER, the information should be able to be used as cited from Twitter as it is non-controversial information from a verified account about themselves. As there's 72 on order so I doubt there's going to be a news article on each individual delivery. — IVORK Discuss 01:15, 6 June 2018
I've just added a source for this. It does raise the broader issue of how to handle the major changes to the RAAF's aircraft fleet which are going to take place over the next few years. The F-35s will arrive, the Hornets will depart, PC-21s are arriving and will replace the PC-9s, the remaining Orions will be replaced with P-8s, and no-one knows what's going on with the Gulfstreams. Is there a reliable source which tracks this on a regular basis? The ADF serials website probably does, but it's probably not a RS. Nick-D ( talk) 03:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the A340 and made some other common sense and documented alterations, only to have them immediately changed back. OK, whatever, someone obviously has a personal-possession complex problem regarding this page. It is really bad form to include leased aircraft in an air force current inventory. The A340 was only a temporary lease to assist with a particular mideast operation. If you look up the same aircraft ID on Flighaware one can see that most recently it is being leased by someone using it on trans-Atlantic routes. The RAAF also leases OMEGA 707 tankers from time to time to assist with exercises, so why not include them? Again, it's bad form to include temporarily leased aircraft in this type of list. But I'll leave it alone so as not to disturb whoever is obsessing over controlling this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phildy65 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I made some changes regarding the King Airs based on a recent firsthand briefing from a RAAF official. He clearly stated that they have consolidated the King Air fleet at East Sale, taking it down to a total of 12 aircraft, including the specialized EW units and new replacements. Mr Control also changed this anyway, and now the chart shows 15 King Airs with another 4 still on order. This betrays an utter lack of objectivity on Mr. Control's part, or else a very low level of reading comprehension. Facts be darned - best let Mr. Control misinform everyone and feed his ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phildy65 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I tried an experiment, with the expected results. I added a link to an Australian Defence Department link that gave official inventory numbers for RAAF aircraft, which differs from the erroneous figures currently shown. It was promptly removed by the same Control Freak that erased my earlier, fully documented edits. Sadly, this demonstrates that Wikipedia articles can be quite inaccurate, and that prejudicial and narcissistic censorship can win out over accuracy. Control Freak can relax, however, as I'm done with this silliness they call Wikipedia. Go ahead and ban me from further editing. I've seen all I need to know just how fraudulent the process, and hence the information that the public gets to ultimately see can be. Whatever checks and balances are supposedly in place are clearly inadequate. For those interested, here is the RAAF link I mentioned above (see page 65). http://www.defence.gov.au/Budget/19-20/2019-20_Defence_PBS_00_Complete.pdf
You are wrong. The far left column of the graph gives aircraft numbers.
The numbers are aircraft that will be in inventory at the start of the fiscal year for the ADF (July, 1 2019). If the Australian Government documentation that I supplied with my original edits had been allowed to remain, you would see that those numbers align exactly with what they individually indicated. So, simple, logical correspondence confirms they are aircraft numbers. What else do you think they could possibly be?!
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, this is a proposed structural change to make it more inline with other articles: Order of Precedence:
This should increase the readability of article in my opinion. IronBattalion ( talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Cooee cobbers, I propose that we add these tables to the rank section to increase readability:
NATO Code | OF-10 | OF-9 | OF-8 | OF-7 | OF-6 | OF-5 | OF-4 | OF-3 | OF-2 | OF-1 | OF(D) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Officer rank insignia | |||||||||||||
Rank title: | Marshal of the RAAF | Air Chief Marshal | Air Marshal | Air Vice Marshal | Air Commodore | Group Captain | Wing Commander | Squadron Leader | Flight Lieutenant | Flying Officer | Pilot Officer | Officer Cadet | |
Abbreviation: | M RAAF | A CM | Air Mshl | A VM | Air Cdre | Gp Capt | Wg Cdr | Sqn Ldr | Flt Lt | Flg Off | Plt Off | Off Cdt |
NATO Code | OR-9 | OR-8 | OR-7 | OR-6 | OR-5 | OR-4 | OR-3 | OR-2 | OR-1 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Other Ranks Insignia | No insignia | ||||||||||
Rank Title: | Warrant Officer of the Air Force | Warrant Officer | Flight Sergeant | Sergeant | Corporal | Leading Aircraftman | Aircraftman | Recruit | |||
Abbreviation: | WO | F Sgt | Sgt | Cpl | L Ac | Ac | Rct |
If there are any flaws with it, please respond. IronBattalion ( talk) 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the RAAF does not operate any helicopters, and the AW139 fleet is operated by CHC under contract to provide SAR services. I propose their removal from the RAAF inventory list. MondoAus ( talk) 01:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day fellow editors, I would like to propose a change for the structure section. Previously, on 6 November, I attempted a change that I quickly reverted and that somewhat resembled the structure section of the Australian Army. I Propose that this change be fully implemented in addition to removing the squadron lists as that would more closely align with the standardising this page with the other Australian Defence Force Pages. This second change is due to the specificity that these lists create that isn't found on the other pages. Any objections? IronBattalion ( talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, while indexing some items on Commons I stumbled on the gear depicted, which according to the inscription comes from the RAAF. This is at an airfield in the former Dutch East Indies. Anyone a clue what this stuff might be? Milliped ( talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Editor A9 has demanded compliance with some rule or other abour changes to identification of jpgs in commons which I don't follow, particularly when they are clearly illogical. In particular, it seems that the Queen's Colour for the RAAF is not only renamed the King's Colour, but for some time it has been (it seems) the Colour for the RAN, see the latest amendment to the main article. Lexysexy ( talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Australian Air Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 31, 2021. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The reason I rated it as a "Start" is that it could be much more than what it currently is. Just my humble opinion. -- Looper5920 13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the Hawk's country of origin from EU to Britain. The EU flag should be used only for European multi-national companies/programs such as the Airbus KC-30. CMarshall ( talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is not intirely correct. It should be updated as nothing has been desided officaly as to the replacement of the fleet. Sorry for adding the new section (Fleet retirment and replacements), should have put it in the future equipment section (i'm only new to all this) -- Powderhound11 09:56, 17 October, 2006 (UTC)
It stands for Joint Strike Fighter.
Acquisition of 24 F/A-18F Block II as an interim replacement for the F-111 was announced today. Text updated with link to media release. Dbromage 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Could we get a list of the munitions utilised by RAAF aircarft? eg. JDAMs, GBUs, Harpoons etc Htra0497 15:04, 11 November 2006 (AEST)
Why were the aircraft photos removed by User:Imgi12? I think they added a lot to the page. Mlouns 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed Robert Little's name from the list of WWI aces. He never served in any Australian formation. He served in the Royal Naval Air Service. -- Catstroke
If anyone is still following the yes/no/maybe/wrong aeroplane/too expensive/unavailable debate in Canberra re the US denying F-22s for the RAAF then the following link should be an eye-opener. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/10/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated/index.php -- Catstroke
I read in Australian press that the USAAF has halved it's orders for the F-35 but have not been able to confirm this. I left a similar note in the F-35 talk pages but no one has replied. This is very serious for us. Does anyone know more? Brettr 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the history of the RAAF Roundel pretty interesting and believe a paragraph on the subject to be worthy of inclusion. I intend to put it at the bottom of the page, and move the pictures of the Roundel. Any objections? RP Bravo 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've prepared some userboxes for different Air Forces freaks - if you would like to use it, feel free to copy & paste following code in your Babel Tower or another place:
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFhv}}
or
{{User:Piotr Mikołajski/Userboxes/RAAFlv}}
First one is high visibility roundel (and colours), second one is low-vis - see examples below. -- Piotr Mikołajski 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This user edits RAAF related articles |
This user edits RAAF related articles |
Does anyone know what Rudd is intending to do, regarding the finilisation of the purchase of the f-35, potentially switching to the f-22 and/or cancelling the super hornets? This is in light of the F-22 article that says australia's (then) opposition is in favour of purchasing some F-22's. So basically, is Rudd going to put the pressure on to get some Raptors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 ( talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Not true, a new edit in the f-22 article claims that the new defence minister is thinking of attempting to acquire the plane in lieu of the super hornets, with the possibility of even investigating russian built planes mentioned in the cited article, so i think the future equipment section should be edited, especially since the f-35 looks far from scheduled for delivery to the RAAF right now. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.165.107.1 (
talk)
14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but there is no concrete order for a set ammount of F-35's at the moment, so I find it hard to believe that they are scheduled for delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 ( talk) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new article called Current Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft, I also added a link to it under the "Current strength" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezstar ( talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How come this article does not have a section like this, as articles about commercial airlines typically do? Certainly some of the events are notable. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, the biggest jet crash in Australia's history perhaps?
Although Confrontation was primarily a ground war, and the RAAFs role in it quite limited, does anyone else think it would be appropriate to include a paragraph on the RAAF during this conflict? I would add the material myself however I don't really have suitable knowledge or sources on this topic. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry folks, just felt it needed to be pointed out that the introduction has an error or perhaps is unclear in meaning. It mentions the RAAF was formed in 1921, then claims it was engaged in World Wars I ( ~ and II). Although of coarse Australia was heavily involved in the first World War's air war, the Australian Air Force and later the ROYAL Australian Air Force was not.
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, kindest regards
Walt Outofthewoods ( talk) 01:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Uninformed wikipedian beginner here, my apologies in advance: Isn't the motto more accurately translated as "Through Adversity to the Stars"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.2.150 ( talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The article presently contains an image of a Boeing 707. See HERE. I understand that the last RAAF 707 was retired in 2008. To avoid conveying a misleading impression about the current status of the 707, I suggest an alternative image is used, or the caption changed to indicate the historical nature of the photograph. Dolphin51 ( talk) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The South African Air Force also claims to be the second oldest air force in the world. Which one is it? 121.216.18.128 ( talk) 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to the date of formation as an air force. SAAF was formed on 1 February 1920. RAAF was formed on 31 March 1921. So, it's hard to say. I think this subject requires more research and investigation. SCΛRECROW CrossCom 10:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
the thing is when you looking into the RAAF history is that it was once know by at least 3 different names the AFC, AAF, RAAF and a few before others the 31 march 21' (origanaly the 1st was planned but they did't want to be knowen as a joke)was when the AAF was formed the prefix royal wasent added until AUG that year "Final approval to establish the Australian Flying Corps was promulgated in Military Order No.570 on 22 October 1912, with orders placed for two B.E.2a, two Deperdussin and a Bristol Boxkite to equip the new air arm"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.117.114 ( talk) 10:33, 15 August 2010
Just wandering should not the F-111 be given some more information regarding the problems and difficulties faced by the air force. From what I know these air craft are still in hangar's/limited use and should therefore be listed as still being actively used or at the very least be referred to as F-111(to be phased out).
Thanks in advance AussieSkeptic82 ( talk) 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
F-111 final flight was 3 December, they will never fly again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrteeve ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed the 'Procurement review' section as the topic it covers (the 2007-2008 review of whether to go ahead with the F/A-18Fs and F-35s) is now outdated as the review endorsed these purchases and they've since gone ahead (albeit partially in the case of the F-35). Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
in this model it cannot take an Australian tank (bushmaster i think) due to the cargo door not opening upwards this is different to the last model (C-123H) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.148.38 ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Midnight Blue has a lot more white in it and is lighter than Navy Blue. Navy Blue is very close to black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.135 ( talk) 06:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The US Air Force included their official colours on their wiki page, like this: |colors= Ultramarine Blue and Air Force Yellow [1] and I was wondering if the RAAF had official colours as well? Brandon.hargraves ( talk) 05:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello, I was wondering what picture we can use in the current aircraft table? I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RAAF_IAI_Heron_on_the_ground.jpg because there weren't any RAAF Herons on wikipedia, but apparently there is an obtainable free version of the RAAF Heron we can use. If somebody could aid me in my search for a free image of a RAAF Heron, then that would be greatly appreciated. If we cannot find an alternative, will we be able to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IAI_Heron_1_in_flight_2.JPEG? It is in use by the US however. Brandon.hargraves ( talk) 05:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't Vietnam count as an "Engagement"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexysexy ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just, hopefully accurately, added the two Australian F-35s to the list of current RAAF aircraft. It appears they they've been accepted into service given that they're about to start being used for training flights, but I can't find a source which explicitly says this. Nick-D ( talk) 03:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@ FOX 52: I've just reverted the article back to the version before your most recent changes. While I agree that the aircraft table would benefit greatly from a revamp and appreciate your efforts, the material you were adding contained a lot of mistakes. For instance, Australia has ordered 72 F-35s, not 100 (the government has an intention to order 100 eventually, but hasn't signed up to do so); 16 AP-3s are in service, not 4 ( [6]); 8 P-8s have been ordered, not 12 (though options for a further 4 have been taken out); and 3 CL-600s are in service, not 1. Nick-D ( talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Nick-D: If there's an issue with a few number(s) discrepancies, off of different sources (mine: flightglobal’s 2015 World Air Forces report) then simply change what you think needs fixing. A full roll back accomplishes zero, and puts a few dead links back in play. Since you agree the section needed a face lift, I’m going restore my updates, with your numbers (which were 4 out of 16 aircraft) not really “major mistakes” and we'll work it from there. On a side note I’m for the table(s), because one just about every military article uses them, and two I think it's an easy and concise way for the reader to obtain the information they seek. - FOX 52 ( talk) 05:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Gday. This was recently changed from 18 to 16 by IP 101 here [7] but then reverted by another editor. As far as I'm aware though there are only a total of 71 F/A-18 As and Bs as four have crashed. Indeed this is stated in the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet article which states: "Australia had 71 Hornets in service in 2006, after four were lost to crashes."[34] which is referenced to: Crick, Darren. "ADF Aircraft Serial Numbers RAAF A21 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18A/B Hornet." adf-serials.com. Retrieved: 31 December 2006. (which has now moved to here [8]). This ref confirms that two As have crashed from the original total of 57 (leaving 55) and two B models from the original total of 18 (leaving 16). The article previously stated that the RAAF currently has 55 As and 18 Bs which equals 73 not 71 so was therefore wrong. Also our article McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service confirms a total of 71 following four crashes and provides the details of the four lost with citations listing the details of those incidents. As such the World Air Forces 2015 source looks to be wrong in this case if it does indeed state 18 Bs in service. As such I have restored the edits. Anotherclown ( talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
On further looking, there is another very interesting source available here, which covers the details of the loss of these four aircraft in detail: Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (2007). Sifting through the evidence : RAAF F-111 and AF/A-18 aircraft and crew losses (PDF). Canberra: Royal Australian Air Force. OCLC 271545224.. Anotherclown ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
AEW&C or AWACS is fine either way. Now the F-18B is a different story the RAAF website only speaks in general terms of the “F/A-18A/B” of what they “can” do operationally. The B model was intended as a conversion/trainer aircraft –according to Dennis R. Jenkins book F/A-18 Hornet: A Navy Success Story (pg. 19) Mcgraw-Hill, 2000; ISBN 0071346961 he states the TF-18A two-seat training version of the F/A-18A fighter, was later re-designated F/A-18B – This article specifies “Australia's air force inventory also includes 55 F/A-18A fighters and 16 F/A-18B trainers”. Hence the larger number of 55 A’s for actual combat versus only 16 B’s which you’d normally use for training. RAAF Museum cook point mentions in December 1988, the last dual-seat Hornet, A21-118, was delivered, each squadron is allocated one dual-seaters, the ARDU operates one, and the remainder equip 2OCU for their primary role of type conversion (trainer). World Air Force 2008 refers to the RAAF F/A-18B as trainer. Here on the US Navy website also states "The B model is used primarily for training". Wikipedia's article F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service has sourced text stating “order of 75 Hornets comprised 57 single-seat "A" variant fighters and 18 two-seat "B" variant operational training aircraft”. It's a difference between primary and secondary roles. - FOX 52 ( talk) 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@ FOX 52: - I still disagree with your latest amendments, and with you changing this yet again without waiting for consensus to develop like AR suggested. My objective is based on the following points:
As such I propose the As and Bs be both listed together under the combat aircraft heading (where they were previously until changed without discussion by Fox 52 in Dec 14
[15]), the numbers of As and Bs be split and specified, and a note included (as it was recently) describing the As as "multirole" and the Bs as "multrole / conversion training" or some similar variation per the below example.
Proposed entry #1
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combat Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | multirole multirole [1] / conversion trainer [2] [3] |
F/A-18A F/A-18B |
55
[4] 16 [4] |
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
@ AustralianRupert: and @ Nick-D:, as you have participated in this discussion to date I also request your further opinion about this specific proposal. If the issue is one of primary vs secondary role then we can switch the order to "conversion trainer / mult-role". Of cse I am more than happy for some other proposal to be put forward by you or someone else; however, my bottom line is that placing the F/A-18Bs under the "Training Aircraft" section is inaccurate and is not supported by the most appropriate sources (i.e. the official RAAF and government auditor description of them which is "multirole" and "combat" aircraft). BTW as an example of how these aircraft are treated elsewhere see the Spanish Air Force article which lists all models of their F/A-18s together under a very similar "Combat Aircraft" heading. Equally List of military aircraft of the United States which lists all models (A/B/C/D) under the "fighter" heading. Similar groupings occur with air forces operating C and Ds - see Kuwait Air Force, Finnish Air Force and List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force for instance. Indeed the RAAF article seems to be the odd one out. Anotherclown ( talk) 03:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
the F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service article has sourced text stating “order of 75 Hornets comprised 57 single-seat "A" variant fighters and 18 two-seat "B" variant operational training aircraft”. The C/D variants are a moot point because the "D" model was built with the intention as a multi-role aircraft having a WSO in the back seat, validated by this article. Furthermore 3 of the 4 sources call the RAAF F/A-18B a trainer, and the RAAF website disclaimer notes " we take no responsibility for content inaccuracies". The form below should just be fine to cover all bases
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trainer Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | advanced trainer | F/A-18B | 16 | Can also perform a combat role |
- FOX 52 ( talk) 05:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combat Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | multirole |
F/A-18A F/A-18B |
55
[1] 16 [1] |
Used for operational conversion |
Aircraft | Origin | Type | Variant | In service | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combat Aircraft | ||||||
F/A-18 | United States | fighter/attack | A/B | 71 |
My take on the discussion to this point:
Propose change role to Aerial warfare, as this includes all military functions, including air combat, transport, ISR, and other air force functions. Garuda28 ( talk) 16:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Australian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Royal Australian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royal Australian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Although this article is very much about the RAAF, I reckon there should be at least a line stating that the other arms of the ADF operate rotary wing aircraft. Casual readers come here to find out about the aviation capabilities of the ADF, as well as the RAAF. Perhaps; 'The Royal Australian Navy also operates XX helicopters through its Fleet Air Arm, and the Australian Army operate XX helicopters to support their operations.' Whether this goes in the body text or the See Also, I'm not sure.
Thoughts?
118.209.228.229 ( talk) 22:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@ FOX 52:@ Markdukes21:@ Ian Rose: per WP:TWITTER, the information should be able to be used as cited from Twitter as it is non-controversial information from a verified account about themselves. As there's 72 on order so I doubt there's going to be a news article on each individual delivery. — IVORK Discuss 01:15, 6 June 2018
I've just added a source for this. It does raise the broader issue of how to handle the major changes to the RAAF's aircraft fleet which are going to take place over the next few years. The F-35s will arrive, the Hornets will depart, PC-21s are arriving and will replace the PC-9s, the remaining Orions will be replaced with P-8s, and no-one knows what's going on with the Gulfstreams. Is there a reliable source which tracks this on a regular basis? The ADF serials website probably does, but it's probably not a RS. Nick-D ( talk) 03:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the A340 and made some other common sense and documented alterations, only to have them immediately changed back. OK, whatever, someone obviously has a personal-possession complex problem regarding this page. It is really bad form to include leased aircraft in an air force current inventory. The A340 was only a temporary lease to assist with a particular mideast operation. If you look up the same aircraft ID on Flighaware one can see that most recently it is being leased by someone using it on trans-Atlantic routes. The RAAF also leases OMEGA 707 tankers from time to time to assist with exercises, so why not include them? Again, it's bad form to include temporarily leased aircraft in this type of list. But I'll leave it alone so as not to disturb whoever is obsessing over controlling this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phildy65 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I made some changes regarding the King Airs based on a recent firsthand briefing from a RAAF official. He clearly stated that they have consolidated the King Air fleet at East Sale, taking it down to a total of 12 aircraft, including the specialized EW units and new replacements. Mr Control also changed this anyway, and now the chart shows 15 King Airs with another 4 still on order. This betrays an utter lack of objectivity on Mr. Control's part, or else a very low level of reading comprehension. Facts be darned - best let Mr. Control misinform everyone and feed his ego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phildy65 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I tried an experiment, with the expected results. I added a link to an Australian Defence Department link that gave official inventory numbers for RAAF aircraft, which differs from the erroneous figures currently shown. It was promptly removed by the same Control Freak that erased my earlier, fully documented edits. Sadly, this demonstrates that Wikipedia articles can be quite inaccurate, and that prejudicial and narcissistic censorship can win out over accuracy. Control Freak can relax, however, as I'm done with this silliness they call Wikipedia. Go ahead and ban me from further editing. I've seen all I need to know just how fraudulent the process, and hence the information that the public gets to ultimately see can be. Whatever checks and balances are supposedly in place are clearly inadequate. For those interested, here is the RAAF link I mentioned above (see page 65). http://www.defence.gov.au/Budget/19-20/2019-20_Defence_PBS_00_Complete.pdf
You are wrong. The far left column of the graph gives aircraft numbers.
The numbers are aircraft that will be in inventory at the start of the fiscal year for the ADF (July, 1 2019). If the Australian Government documentation that I supplied with my original edits had been allowed to remain, you would see that those numbers align exactly with what they individually indicated. So, simple, logical correspondence confirms they are aircraft numbers. What else do you think they could possibly be?!
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, this is a proposed structural change to make it more inline with other articles: Order of Precedence:
This should increase the readability of article in my opinion. IronBattalion ( talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Cooee cobbers, I propose that we add these tables to the rank section to increase readability:
NATO Code | OF-10 | OF-9 | OF-8 | OF-7 | OF-6 | OF-5 | OF-4 | OF-3 | OF-2 | OF-1 | OF(D) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Officer rank insignia | |||||||||||||
Rank title: | Marshal of the RAAF | Air Chief Marshal | Air Marshal | Air Vice Marshal | Air Commodore | Group Captain | Wing Commander | Squadron Leader | Flight Lieutenant | Flying Officer | Pilot Officer | Officer Cadet | |
Abbreviation: | M RAAF | A CM | Air Mshl | A VM | Air Cdre | Gp Capt | Wg Cdr | Sqn Ldr | Flt Lt | Flg Off | Plt Off | Off Cdt |
NATO Code | OR-9 | OR-8 | OR-7 | OR-6 | OR-5 | OR-4 | OR-3 | OR-2 | OR-1 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Other Ranks Insignia | No insignia | ||||||||||
Rank Title: | Warrant Officer of the Air Force | Warrant Officer | Flight Sergeant | Sergeant | Corporal | Leading Aircraftman | Aircraftman | Recruit | |||
Abbreviation: | WO | F Sgt | Sgt | Cpl | L Ac | Ac | Rct |
If there are any flaws with it, please respond. IronBattalion ( talk) 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the RAAF does not operate any helicopters, and the AW139 fleet is operated by CHC under contract to provide SAR services. I propose their removal from the RAAF inventory list. MondoAus ( talk) 01:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
G'day fellow editors, I would like to propose a change for the structure section. Previously, on 6 November, I attempted a change that I quickly reverted and that somewhat resembled the structure section of the Australian Army. I Propose that this change be fully implemented in addition to removing the squadron lists as that would more closely align with the standardising this page with the other Australian Defence Force Pages. This second change is due to the specificity that these lists create that isn't found on the other pages. Any objections? IronBattalion ( talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, while indexing some items on Commons I stumbled on the gear depicted, which according to the inscription comes from the RAAF. This is at an airfield in the former Dutch East Indies. Anyone a clue what this stuff might be? Milliped ( talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Editor A9 has demanded compliance with some rule or other abour changes to identification of jpgs in commons which I don't follow, particularly when they are clearly illogical. In particular, it seems that the Queen's Colour for the RAAF is not only renamed the King's Colour, but for some time it has been (it seems) the Colour for the RAN, see the latest amendment to the main article. Lexysexy ( talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)