Talk:Royal Australian Air Force

Rating

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)

Do you have any specific suggestions for how the entry could be improved? --Nick Dowling 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

BAE Hawk

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)

Future equipment

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)

While the F-35 hasn't been 'officially' selected, the Minister for Defence and RAAF have recently ruled out purchasing any other aircraft to replace the F/A-18s and F-111s. The F-22 was explicitly ruled out as being unsuitable. See: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20556293-31037,00.html If you copy and paste non-neutral material from Karlo Copp's website it will be removed - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is worth reading and should help. Kopp's point of view appears to be a minority, with the RAAF, Department of Defence and Australian Security Policy Institute supporting the F-35 over the other available aircraft (the ASPI publication at: http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=42&pubtype=5 is a good example of the arguments in favour of the F-35 and the unfeasibility of purchasing F-22s and keeping the F-111's airworthy as Kopp proposes) --Nick Dowling 10:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :) . From what i have read and what Kopp's saying it looks to me that buying the F-22s and keeping the F-111's is the best option for the RAAF, as the F-35 is outclassed by surrounding Countries Fighters. --Powderhound11 10:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Aparently the RAAF considers the F-22 unsuitable for Australia's requirements as it is only effective in a single role (air superiority) while the F-35 is a much more capable attack aircraft. Kopp isn't held in high regard by much of the Australian defence community and while his articles are typically interesting they shouldn't be considered the last word on the topic. --Nick Dowling 10:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree with you on that last point, although the issue is quiet intriguing. It's a pitty little is published about this issue. --Powderhound11, 17 October 2006

I just came across an interesting online news paper article stating that the US wonnt let us buy the F/A - 22, if true it could explain alot. see: http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/US-decisions-threaten-fighter-project/2006/08/04/1154198330441.html -- Powderhound11, 17 October 2006

Yes, and the fact that the F-22 is too expensive. If it were for sale and a purchase was made by the RAAF, they won't be available in significant numbers to be effective. My rationale for the F-35 is 1)multi-role better for a middle power nation 2)upgrade and spares capability - the RAAF doesn't want to stuck with an aircraft that is only used by few or is too old (eg. F-111) 3)Asia-pacific region has a US bias - geopolitical reality. The procurement debate seems to be a clash of the multi-role vs air superiority paradigm. Htra0497 15:04, 11 November 2006 (AEST)

What does JSF stand for? (the article does not say) --AUser 14:30 11 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.46.95 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 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)

Munitions

Could we get a list of the munitions utilised by RAAF aircarft? eg. JDAMs, GBUs, Harpoons etc Htra0497 15:04, 11 November 2006 (AEST)

Today's photo removal

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)

I presume it was becuase they were squishing the table of aircraft up. I've reduced the size of the photos, but they really need to be moved so the table works properly. --Nick Dowling 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would arranging them in a horizontal strip (Gallery fashion) make sense? Mlouns 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

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

OK, that makes sense, sorry for the revert. I hope Little is mentioned in an appropriate list for that service? Mlouns 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Little listed in the Notable Personnel section of the RNAS article Catstroke

F-22

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

F-35 numbers

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)

None have actually been ordered. A final decision on placing an order will not be made until 2008. Dbromage 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Roundel

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)

Go for it --Nick Dowling 08:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

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

New Government

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)

I don't see any signs of the current Democrat Party-controlled US Congress changing the laws to allow exports of the F-22, which is currently illegal. That might change after the Federal Elections this year, depending upon who wins the White House, and what party controls the House and/or Senate, but it's unlikely to make a difference at this point. - BillCJ (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The new Government has ordered a full review of the RAAF's fighter replacement program. While it looks like the F/A-18Fs might get the chop, there's been no mention of F-22s from Labor for a while now - presumably for the reason Bill notes. See [1] for a news report on this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:25, 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)

That text didn't reflect what the source actually said. The F-35 and F/A-18 purchase is under review and no decision has been taken to walk away from the F-35. I believe that Labor's policy is to operate a mix of F-22s and F-35s. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:02, 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)

New Current Aircraft Article

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)

Incidents and accidents

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)

Because no-one has written it yet. I don't think that any of the air force articles have such sections, however, and such a section may not be appropriate given that the RAAF has lost hundreds of aircraft in accidents and combat. Which notable incidents and accidents would you like to include? Nick Dowling (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the biggest jet crash in Australia's history perhaps?

RAAF during Confrontation with Indonesia

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)

Yes, though this kind of detail might be best placed in the History of the Royal Australian Air Force article... Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the Canberra's go operational during this period?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:43, 25 May 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)

I don't see that it's unclear. The article states clearly "The RAAF began in March 1912 as the Australian Flying Corps and became a fully independent Air Force in March 1921", so when it says the RAAF took part in both world wars it was obviously as the AFC in WWI. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Motto question

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)

As far as I'm aware, yes it is. When I first joined the RAAF in 1978 that was the English translation that was used officially but, for some reason, the current translation is what has been officially adopted now. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 707

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)

Great idea - I've replaced it with a more interesting photo Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

World's second oldest air force?

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)

It is difficult to find accurate information on that matter.

• The RAAF website says October 22, 1912 for the date of official approval. [2]
• This unofficial SAAF run website says 1913 [3]
• The SAAF website doesn't specify an official establishment date, instead it refers to a provision for the formation of the South African Aviation Corps in 1912 [4]

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)

Honestly - the lead was highly POV (coming directly from an RAAF site quite understandably)- I have rewritten it as:

• The AFC and RAAF were two different services, although the second can accurately be described as continuing the role and traditions of the first.
• "Air force" in the sense of an "organised force of military aircraft" - there were obviously any number of these during WWI - and prior to 1912 for that matter. The German and French air forces (in this sense) date from 1910!
• "Air Force" in the sense of a separate service with no connection with the army or navy - the RAF and the SAAF at least, are both older, and I suspect so are some other services - in any case the article mentioned 1912 in this regard - which would have predated the formation of the RAF (in 1918) by 6 years.

Until somebody comes up with some real research on this matter (which obviously needs to look outside the British Empire!! I think the new lead is fair enough - and at least more encyclopedic than the old one.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:12, 18 May 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

Whilst the AFC was formed prior to World War I, it was raised as a Corps of the Australian Army, not as an independant service. AusTerrapin (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

F-111's?

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)

Procurement review section removed

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)

C-130J

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)

Uniform Colour

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)

Official RAAF Colours

The US Air Force included their official colours on their wiki page, like this: |colors= Ultramarine Blue and Air Force Yellow    and I was wondering if the RAAF had official colours as well? Brandon.hargraves (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

References

RAAF Heron

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)

Unless the RAAF has been showing off its single-Australia based Heron at airshows (which I've never seen any indication of in the Aviation press) I really doubt that a free alternative for that photo exists. The other two Herons are permanently deployed to Afghanistan. I've removed the tag from that image as it didn't make much sense. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the RAAF put the thing on display last year: [5]. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Engagements

Doesn't Vietnam count as an "Engagement"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexysexy (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, seems to be an oversight to me. I've added it now to the infobox. BTW I've removed Sudan from the infobox as RAAF involvement (indeed ADF involvement) is minor and doesn't even rate a mention in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

F-35s in the list of current aircraft

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)

New aircraft numbers table

@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)

As most of the detail is at List of current Royal Australian Air Force aircraft perhaps it could be made a lot simpler and changed to prose to detail types by roles rather than a chunky table. MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'd also suggest omitting the column with the source country national flags: these add visual clutter and aren't very useful, and including a statement somewhere that the RAAF sources its aircraft from the US and Europe would be more helpful to readers. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 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)

In my opinion these were major mistakes and if Nick hadn't reverted I would have (although you now seem to have corrected the ones I saw). That said if these mistakes represent what is published in the "2015 World Air Forces" report then I question whether it is a reliable source. I'm not an aviation expert though so I'll leave that assessment up to others with more knowledge. Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be more specific the some numbers are based on projected acquisitions, and really should be left out per WP:CBALL - FOX 52 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Has has been suggested this article doesnt need the numbers (that is what the sub-article is for) just a summary of the types and roles. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of B model F/A-18s currently in service

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)

BTW I've added a new ref for the 16 F/A-18Bs now. Anotherclown (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

adf-gallery.com appears to be a self published site, perhaps there is a reliable source news source or secondary source to verify claim on the numbers - FOX 52 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly the ADF Serials website has been used as a reference in McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service which is a featured article so I'd say it is considered reliable.
• Regardless, Yes there are numerous reliable sources which indicate that only 71 remain (not 73). For instance:

• The Australian National Audit Office report here - [9] which states: "'This audit examines the upgrade and sustainment of the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF’s) fleet of 71 F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft and the sustainment of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft. These aircraft form the basis of the RAAF’s air combat and airborne ground-attack capability."; and
• The RAAF site here [10] which states: "Based at RAAF Base Williamtown and RAAF Base Tindal, the 71 F/A-18A/B Hornets are an integral part of Australia’s air combat capability."

• I cannot find any source other than Crick which states succinctly that only 55 As and 16 Bs remain; however, this is fairly clear from the fol:

• The fact that a total of 75 were purchased, including 57 As and 18 Bs is a referenced fact in the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service (Wilson, Stewart (January–March 2005). "Made in Australia: Hornet". Aero Australia. No. 5: pp. 32–42. ISSN 1448-8086, p. 42).
• Wilson, Stewart (1994) "Military Aircraft of Australia" p. 147 states that the As were allocated tail numbers A21-1 to A2-57, while the Bs were given tail numbers A21-101 to A21-118 (also confirmed here by the RAAF Museum if you wish to verify [11]).
• The details of the four lost in accidents are included (with references) in McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service which states: "Four of the RAAF's Hornets were destroyed in flying accidents during the late 1980s and early 1990s. A21-104 was the first aircraft to be lost when it crashed at Great Palm Island in Queensland on 18 November 1987; its pilot was killed. The next loss occurred on 2 August 1990 when two No. 75 Squadron Hornets (A21-21 and A21-42) collided. A21-42 crashed, killing the unit's commanding officer; the other aircraft was damaged but managed to return to base. On 5 June 1990 A21-41 crashed 100 kilometres (62 mi) north-east of Weipa, Queensland, killing its pilot. A21-106 was the fourth aircraft to be lost when it crashed inland from Shoalwater Bay in Queensland on 19 May 1992 – its pilot and a passenger from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation died." This is referenced to ADF Serials and to Wilson, Stewart (1993). Phantom, Hornet, and Skyhawk in Australian Service. Weston Creek, ACT: Aerospace Publications. ISBN 187567103X, pp. 124-125.
• So from the tail numbers we can see two As have been lost (A21-42 and A21-41) and two Bs (A21-104 and A21-106). That means that there are 55 As left (from the 57 purchased) and 16 Bs (from the 18 purchased).
• Currently the article states there are 55 As and 18 Bs which equals 73, which is clearly incorrect. As such I will amend it again to the correct figures and provide the additional citation as you have requested. However, if you still have an issue with the break down of the number of As and Bs we can just say there are 71 A/Bs as this is clearly supported by numerous reliable sources as I have shown above. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 20 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)

Anotherclown my apologies as I’ve found the culprit to the confusion, user “Markdukes21” made a number change here. Thus when I corrected the format, the incorrect numbers were passed along. For the record I did input the accurate number(s) prior to Markdukes21 erroneous switch – cheers FOX 52 (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries at least that issue is resolved - However, I disagree with you consistently changing back IP 101s edits to "AWACS" as this is not a term used by the RAAF. They use "AWE&C" - pls see here [12], equally describing the B model as a trainer is not accurate either. Whilst used for conversion training by No. 2 OCU it is a mult-role fighter and is described as so by the RAAF, see here [13] which states "The Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18A and F/A-18B Hornets are multi-role fighter aircraft, capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions". Also per my earlier posts so does the ANAO report which states: "the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF’s) fleet of 71 F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft and the sustainment of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft. These aircraft form the basis of the RAAF’s air combat and airborne ground-attack capability...". Anotherclown (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As another source for 71 aircraft remaining in service, see page 42 of the 2014-15 Defence Portfolio Budget Statements. The F/A-18Bs have received exactly the same upgrades as the As, and are just as capable of participating in combat. Their main role is pilot conversion training though (most are with 2 OCU, and each of the three frontline squadrons apparently has a F/A-18B on strength). Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Gday Nick, thanks for confirming that. My understanding is that the main difference (other than the Guy in Back) is the Bs carry slightly less fuel. Also I have changed "Electronic Aircraft" to "Electronic Warfare" as that more accurately reflects the terminology used by the RAAF here [14] - it also happens to more closely follow the naming convention used on Wikipedia (our article is called Electronic-warfare aircraft after all. I have no idea what an "Electronic Aircraft" is. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 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)

G'day, it seems like a matter of semantics to me (but I'm purely a ground based mammal) so I think a note of some description seems to best way to resolve the issue/compromise. But whether it is listed as primarily trainer with a secondary combat role, or vice versa should be determined by consensus first instead of constantly being changed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - FOX 52 (talk) 00:28, 21 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:

1. You cite US Navy, Flight Global, Jenkins etc, all of which appear to be primarily American sources. The RAAF source and the Australian National Audit Office report I have provided above are far more authoritative as they both describe their role specifically in Australian service which is the issue here. They use the term "multi-role" and state that both the As and the Bs are part of Australia's "air-combat" capability.
2. You ask "what they “can” do operationally" - well we have already established that haven't we? As Nick showed above the Bs are fully combat capable aircraft in Australian service; however, they are primarily used for pilot conversion training. This is of cse their peace-time role though. What role would / could they be used in if req'd? Combat obviously. This is evidenced by the fact that they have received all the same upgrades as the As (why spend all that money on an advanced trainer?). Australia has a very small air combat capability (unlike the US) and were it involved in a major regional conflict would inevitability end up having to use its Bs in this role (as unlikely as such a situation might seem at this moment). Undoubtedly this is very different to the US Navy or Marine Corps as they have a much larger fleet of aircraft to use so would not have to use their Bs in that role.
3. Such points aside, your argument misses a fairly obvious point which is that the majority of all military equipment is used primarily for training and only ever rarely used for actual combat (for instance the F/A-18As have only been deployed twice on operations by the RAAF - 2003 and 2015 - but have been in service since the mid 1980s, while the F-111s and Mirages were never used in combat). So should we list it all under "training"? Obviously we would not. The RAAF - the user of this equipment - calls them multi-role combat air craft and maintains them to be used this way if required, but during normal peace-time operations uses them for conversion (primarily) but also for wpns testing with ARDU, and for exercises.

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 / conversion trainer	F/A-18A F/A-18B	55 16

@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)

Likewise List of current Royal Australian Air Force aircraft which also lumps the F/A-18s together. Anotherclown (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You couldn’t have stated it more clearly “the Bs are fully combat capable aircraft in Australian service, however, they are primarily used for pilot conversion training”; And if you want pull out Wikipedia articles, then you have to see F/A-18 Hornet export variants:

• (A)F/A-18A: Single-seat fighter/attack version for the Royal Australian Air Force.
• (A)F/A-18B: Two-seat training version for the Royal Australian Air Force.
• EF-18A: Single-seat fighter/attack version for the Spanish Air Force
• EF-18B: Two-seat training version for the Spanish Air Force.

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)

I can't recall seeing any reliable sources which describe the B variant as an "advanced trainer" - this term is usually applied to specialised training aircraft such as the BAE Systems Hawk. Suggesting that the RAAF's website isn't a reliable source of information on how the RAAF classifies and operates its aircraft because of the presence of boilerplate legal text is stretching things rather a lot... The Military Balance classifies Australia's F/A-18Bs as being "fighter/ground attack" aircraft, like the A variants. I'd place very little value on the Flight International World Air Forces entry for Australia - it contains several obvious, and significant, errors which indicate that it wasn't fact-checked properly (eg, a totally wrong claim that a further 12 F/A-18Fs are on order and the wrong number of F-35s and P-8 orders) Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the World Air Forces report has been caught out on several occasions here. Despite what User:FOX 52 says the majority of reliable Australian sources describe the F/A-18Bs as "multirole", "combat" or "fighter/ground attack". I'm not remotely interested in generic US sources which only talk about US Navy or Marine Corps use of this variant as they are not at all relevant to the Australian context. And I only mentioned the Wikipedia articles because they provide examples of similar tables. I'm not going to bother posting the same links as that would be pointless, however from this needlessly long discussion we can see that the RAAF, the Australian National Audit Office and the Military Balance all describe the Bs as combat aircraft or some variation of that, and that there are no reliable sources calling them an "advanced training" aircraft so calling them the is probably WP:OR. As such what are your thoughts on something like this?

Proposed entry # 2

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Variant	In service	Notes
Combat Aircraft
F/A-18	United States	multirole	F/A-18A F/A-18B	55 16	Used for operational conversion

Alternatively we can simply return the entry to what it was before it was changed without discussion on 28 December 2014 by User:FOX 52 here [16] to this version [17] which lists both the As and Bs together under the heading "Fighter Aircraft" and describes them as "Fighter/Attack". If there is no consensus for either User:FOX 52's version - and so far it seems to only have the support one person (FOX 52) or one of my proposals then we are left with no alternative than to revert it back to that. The alternative is a change to amend the current table to a more generic variation of the original Dec 14 table, like this:

Proposed entry # 3

Aircraft	Origin	Type	Variant	In service	Notes
Combat Aircraft
F/A-18	United States	fighter/attack	A/B	71

Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight International not a reliable source? Nick-D I guess you missed the asterisk next to the number(s) on order, it means they are pending purchase approval or contract signature (In other words they are potential). Like a potential order of a 100 F-35’s, and echoed by The Australian “bringing the total number of F-35's to around 100”. And I guess will turn a blind eye to your own findings “the Bs are fully combat capable...however, they are primarily used for pilot conversion training”. I think you guys are missing the point of Primary Role. - FOX 52 (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• My Hornet books describe the 2-seat B-model as a trainer version, while the later 2-seat D-model is used for combat for recon and forward air control mainly by USMC. I like the idea of listing them by aircraft type, such as Fighters/Attack aircraft in one group and Trainer aircraft in another. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Gday - the main issue I see is that this is US Navy and US Marine Corps specific and ignores how they are considered in Australian service. There are numerous reliable sources (government reports, books, official websites, the military balance etc) which treat both the As and Bs in Australian service as part of its air combat capability, either describing them both as "fighter/attack" aircraft, "multi-role", "combat aircraft", "tactical fighters" etc. For instance (from a quick Google Book search):

• The Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15, p. 42: which lists the A/Bs together in terms of Air Force deliverable flying hours [18].
• The Australian National Audit Office report here - [19] which states: "'This audit examines the upgrade and sustainment of the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF’s) fleet of 71 F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft and the sustainment of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft. These aircraft form the basis of the RAAF’s air combat and airborne ground-attack capability."; and
• The Royal Australian Air Force site here [20] which states: "Based at RAAF Base Williamtown and RAAF Base Tindal, the 71 F/A-18A/B Hornets are an integral part of Australia’s air combat capability."
• Australia Air Force Handbook: Strategic Information and Weapons Systems 2013, p. 87: "A/B Multi-Role Fighters" [21]
• Military Modernization in an Era of Uncertainty by Ashley J. Tellis, Michael Wills 2005, p. 315: "Australia’s core air combat capability today lies in its 71 F/A-18 Hornet multi-role fighters. Though the Hornets are older A/B models..." [22]
• The Armed Forces: Instrument of Peace, Strength, Development and Prosperity by Joseph Babatunde Fagoyinbo 2013, p. 173: "The combat aircraft force comprises 19 F-111 bombers and 71 F/A-18 Hornet fighters..." [23]
• The Information Revolution in Military Affairs in Asia by Emily Goldman 2004, p. 33: "The RAAF's 71 F/A-18 Hornet tactical fighters were gradually losing parity with the best regional air forces." [24]
• Defense & Foreign Affairs Handbook by Gregory R. Copley 1999, p. 98: "16 McDonnell Douglas AF/F-18B Homet tactical fighters..." [25]
• Strategic Asia 2010-11: Asia's Rising Power and America's Continued Purpose by Ashley J. Tellis, ‎Andrew Marble, ‎Travis Tanner 2010, pp. 100-101: "The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is in the process of replacing its aging F-111 and F/A-18A/B fighters..." [26]
• Aircraft & Aerospace Asia-Pacific by Peter Isaacson Publications 2000, p. 52: "multi-role F/A18A/B Hornets" [27]
• The Australian Defence Force: Its Structure and Capabilities By Australian Government Publishing Service 1984, p. 54: "75 F/A-18 Hornet multi-role fighter aircraft" [28] Anotherclown (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• You should be more careful with what what you assume. My first sentence was based on all Hornet users covered in my books, not simply US ones. I mentioned the D-model only as an example of different usage. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose another point is that the Australian Hornets were pretty much upgraded to C/D models before the last one was even delivered, with upgrade work in 1990-91. This point is made in Wilson (1994) Military Aircraft of Australia p. 146-147, which is well before the latest updates in mid 2000s. This muddies the waters a bit when using generic reference material to what a B model is. Specific Australian references are really required to determine this question and they all call them "combat aircraft" of some description. Anotherclown (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Three more sources:

• The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Australian Defence Almanac also groups the F/A-18As and Bs together [29] (the only difference it notes is that the B variant's has a crew of two; a pilot and an instructor)
• ASPI's 2010 summary of the RAAF does the same [30]
• David Horner (Australia's leading military historian) also groups the A and B variants together in his book Making the Australian Defence Force, and notes that while 2 OCU is primarily a training unit "in particular circumstances it could carry out operational tasks" (page 210)

The only source which has been advanced which treats the aircraft separately appears to be Flight Global publications, which are clearly mistaken about the RAAF's force structure so I think that this is getting conclusive. I think that we should go with option 2 above. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I'd give my support to treating them together, with a note or something similar (so Proposal # 2). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you've showed serveral reports, books, official websites that lump together the F/A-18A/B and referred to it as a single aircraft. Yet your skirting the issue on what predominate role the "B" model has in the RAAF. I find it interesting that the Canadian Armed Forces review obtained “24 CF-18B trainers for nine squadrons” Spain’s Air force review has 12 EF-18B for training. Canada, Spain and Australia have all followed the same acquisition model, a large number of A variants, & small number of B variants, which makes sense for the combat vs training ratio. Yet somehow Australia should be excluded? My last concern to the Aussie (editors) can you be objective about this, being a Australian as there can be Conflict of interest (no implications, just a note). - And with that said it should be left that way it is - FOX 52 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

How the Canadian and Spanish air forces classify their B variant Hornets is of no relevance whatsoever to this article on the Australian Air Force. Your "last concern" is, to put things plainly, moronically stupid and offensive: we're referring to high-quality sources here, not some kind of nationalistic viewpoint. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In situations where there is a dispute about content etc, editing decisions are made by consensus, not whether or not someone is one nationality or another. So far it doesn't appear that there is consensus to support your (FOX 52) edit. If consensus develops to support it, then I've no doubt that Nick, AC and everyone else here (as experienced editors) will abide by that consensus. Casting aspersions about objectivity is not the way to establish that consensus, nor does it promote a collaborative editing environment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D as an administrator you of people should know name calling like "moronically stupid" dose not support civility. I spoke in general terms, for those to consider objectivity. Words like "high-quality" sources which all are Australian defense notes. Yet I introduce Flight International (A british news source and somehow it's not worthy FOX 52 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And claiming that people are being something other than objective and editing with a conflict of interest is polite? Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I ask those to consider their objectiveness. In no way did I say you weren't being objective, but just the same sad to you had to resort to name calling. - FOX 52 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the longest and silliest arguments I,ve seen on this site. The dual seat classic Hornets are obviously classified as combat aircraft by RAAF and that seems to be well backed up by numerous documents listed above. No comparison between it and a Hawk which is obviously a trainer. Putting them as training aircraft is just ignorant. I,d change it myself but it's a bit beyond my coding ability. Mongoose Army (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

F/A-18Bs listed under the "combat aircraft" or "training aircraft" section

My take on the discussion to this point:

1. Sources which refer to B models as “trainers” primarily describe their previous use by the US Navy or Marine Corps (and a few Spanish and Canadian - mostly taken out of context though) and are not relevant to Australian use, or have been proven to be inaccurate (i.e. World Air Forces Report 2015);
2. Sources which refer to the Bs in Australian service as “trainers” describe their primary peace-time use only, which neglects their stated operational role (combat) and the obviously fact that all military aircraft are primarily used for training in peace-time;
3. In Australian service both have received the same upgrades and a fully combat capable aircraft (being upgraded first to C/D standard and then HUG);
4. In the RAAF both As and Bs are used by the operational squadrons (No. 3, 75 and 77) and by the training unit (No. 2 OCU) and the Bs are considered part of its overall “air combat capability”;
5. Key Royal Australian Air Force, Australian National Audit Office, and Department of Defence sources, as well as the IIS Military Balance refer to the B models in Australian service as “multirole fighters”, “combat aircraft” or something similar;
6. Numerous other reliable sources including books, reports, authors etc either refer to the As and Bs in Australian service together as part of its “air combat capability” or as being “combat aircraft”, “multi-role fighters” or “fighter/attack aircraft”;
7. Splitting the As and Bs into two separate entries is inconsistent with how they are presented in other articles on Wikipedia; and
8. There is currently no consensus for the previous move of the Bs from the "Combat Aircraft" section to the "Training Aircraft" section as occurred without discussion by User:FOX 52 here [31].
9. As such I have moved them back to the "Combat Aircraft" section. If a consensus develops to move it a later date then of cse that can occur. Anotherclown (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• All Spanish and Canadian "B" variants are trainers - and you state as “trainers” describe their primary peace-time use really? - World Air Forces Report 2015 is very accurate, asterisks is something you have to look up, but since that source goes against your POV it must be wrong. - Thanks for compromising FOX 52 (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Role:

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)

Contrary to my edits, I'm actually going to support this being that both the RAF and RCAF articles have this definition. My only issue was that the wording itself doesn't cover the other categories but these are explained in the actual Aerial warfare article. @Nick-D: may want to comment. — IVORK _Discuss 06:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623132435/http://www.raaf.gov.au/History/ww1.aspx to http://www.raaf.gov.au/history/ww1.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-confirm-58-aircraft-f-35-order-398443/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-confirms-a12.4bn-f-35-order-398486/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006120200/http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/10/02/australian-air-task-group-commences-operational-missions-over-iraq/ to http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/10/02/australian-air-task-group-commences-operational-missions-over-iraq/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006101103/http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/09/17/adf-delivers-fourth-arms-shipment-to-iraq/ to http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/09/17/adf-delivers-fourth-arms-shipment-to-iraq/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006101559/http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/09/26/adf-delivers-fifth-shipment-to-iraq/ to http://news.defence.gov.au/2014/09/26/adf-delivers-fifth-shipment-to-iraq/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705010437/http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2015/07/01/minister-for-defence-two-additional-kc-30a-multi-role-tanker-transport-aircraft-for-the-raaf/ to http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2015/07/01/minister-for-defence-two-additional-kc-30a-multi-role-tanker-transport-aircraft-for-the-raaf/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201202811/http://strike.realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=22168&startpage=page0000014 to http://strike.realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=22168&startpage=page0000014

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

RAN and Army aircraft

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)

@Ian Rose and Nick-D: G'day, the lead starts "The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), formed March 1921, is the aerial warfare branch of the Australian Defence Force." I wonder if this could be tweaked a little in response to the above concern. For instance, maybe this might work: "The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), formed March 1921, is the aerial warfare branch of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). It operates the majority of the ADF's fixed and rotary wing aircraft, although both the Australian Army and Royal Australian Navy also operate aircraft in various roles." Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, I don't have a particular problem with mentioning this in the lead as you propose; I'd just note that unless we go to the trouble of creating a new short section about Army Aviation and the FAA in the main body we'd need to cite this new bit in the lead (which I think would be fine, I think I'd prefer a brief cited mention in the lead to adding detail to the main body). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, yes I think it would be best just to reference it in the lead. Potentially we could use these two sources: [32] and [33]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made the edit now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

F-35 numbers

@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 Have no problem as long there is text to support the numbers change (not just a picture) - FOX 52 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

Leased Aircraft

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)

Super King Air

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)

Please be WP:CIVIL. Calling an fellow editor "Mr. Control" is not appropriate, and could be considered a personal attack. I understand your frustration, but "comment on the content, not the contributor". All that said, you've never edited this article article's under your username, so I don't know what edits you're referring to. Also, "first-hand briefings" aren't verifiable unless the briefing is publicly recorded or a transcript is available per WP:VERIFY, so if you we're reverted on that basis, it's justifiable. - BilCat (talk) 00:56, 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

As you have decided this is not the place for you this might be pointless but two points, dont attack other editors it is not the way things are done around here. Also the reference page 65 you tried to add as far as I can see only has flying hours and a few anticipaterd changes in the fleet - I cant see an aircraft inventory anywhere on that page so clearly not appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong. The far left column of the graph gives aircraft numbers.

Doesnt actually say "inventory" it appears to be the future assumption for the availability calculation, can you show that it is based on the actual fleet today and not a future estimate ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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?!

Some indication that they are the current fleet numbers at some citable date point not crystal balling on the future fleet. Future changes can be added to the prose/notes (and this would be a good reference for that) but we need a reliably dated inventory. Also note the figures dont have to be todays figure as an encyclopedia they just need to be acurate on the date referenced (which can be any time in the past). MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct: those are the 1 July numbers. They're obviously tricky to use in that in some cases (especially the F-35) the RAAF's fleet will vary over the financial year. There's also an error in that the RAAF is now down to 69 F/A-18A/Bs given that two were recently transferred to Canada. The Portfolio Budget Statements are an excellent source on the ADF's aircraft and ship holdings. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not saying it is not a good source but that it is not July 2019 and the figures dont represent the fleet at an earlier date, perhaps wait until July to use it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RAAF Ranks and Special Insignia.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed retooling of Structure

Hello, this is a proposed structural change to make it more inline with other articles: Order of Precedence:

• History
• Structure (The squadrons from current strength section)
• Personnel (combining of Women in RAAF, Personnel and Ranks and Uniform)
• Equipment (Stripped down version of current Strength)
• Roundel and Badge (merging of the respective Roundel and Badge Sections
• Roulettes (i think this should be merged but I don't know where to put it)
• Future Procurement

This should increase the readability of article in my opinion. IronBattalion (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding Rank Tables

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)

Flight Officer is wrong, should be Flying Officer. Flight Officer was a now discontinued rank in the Nursing Service and the WRAAF.Lexysexy (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Done!IronBattalion (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AW139 deletion

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)

Proposed 'Structure' Restructuring

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)

Unknown RAAF equipment

Apparatus belonging to the RAAF

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)

Queen's/King's Colour

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)

Yes, I tried to correct the mistake but they seem to be convinced they're correct. As is the case for most wiki admins. However I believe I have requested the change to the name be made at wikicommons. Not sure why the renaming of a file has such a convoluted process and why I can't just rename it here. Hopefully the change will be made soon. Master1701 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)