Talk:Australian Defence Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Australian Defence Force is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
A This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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/cia/publications/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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] % 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_Defence_Force_be0d.html"