Talk:Royal Australian Air Force

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  BAE Hawk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Would arranging them in a horizontal strip (Gallery fashion) make sense? Mlouns 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's photo removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  F-35 numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it --Nick Dowling 08:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roundel

message: 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:

or

First one is high visibility roundel (and colours), second one is low-vis - see examples below. --Piotr Mikołajski 07:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  for a news report on this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New Government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Current Aircraft Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Incidents and accidents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Didn't the Canberra's go operational during this period?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RAAF during Confrontation with Indonesia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Motto question 

message: 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)
replies: text: Great idea - I've replaced it with a more interesting photo Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing 707 

message: 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)
thread_title:  F-111's? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Procurement review section removed 

message: 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)
thread_title: C-130J

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uniform Colour 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Official RAAF Colours 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, it seems that the RAAF put the thing on display last year: . Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAAF Heron 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  F-35s in the list of current aircraft 

message: 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 (); 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New aircraft numbers table 

message: My take on the discussion to this point:
# 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);
# 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;
#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);
# 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”;
# 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;
# 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”;
# Splitting the As and Bs into two separate entries is inconsistent with how they are presented in other articles on Wikipedia; and
# 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 .
# 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  F/A-18Bs listed under the "combat aircraft" or "training aircraft" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  may want to comment.  —  IVORK Discuss 06:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role: 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: G'day, Ian, yes I think it would be best just to reference it in the lead. Potentially we could use these two sources:  and . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the edit now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAN and Army aircraft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  F-35 numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Leased Aircraft 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Super King Air 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed retooling of Structure 

message: 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-1         	OF(D)        	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-9           	OR-8           	OR-7    	OR-6    	OR-5    	OR-4    	OR-3               	OR-2       	OR-1       	
Australia Other Ranks Insignia	                                	               	               	        	        	        	        	                   	           	No insignia	No insignia
Rank Title:                   	Warrant Officer of the Air Force	Warrant Officer	Flight Sergeant	Sergeant	Sergeant	Corporal	Corporal	Leading Aircraftman	Aircraftman	Recruit    	
Abbreviation:                 	WO                              	WO             	F Sgt          	Sgt     	Sgt     	Cpl     	Cpl     	L Ac               	Ac         	Rct        	
If there are any flaws with it, please respond. IronBattalion (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done!IronBattalion (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Rank Tables 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AW139 deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed 'Structure' Restructuring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unknown RAAF equipment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Queen's/King's Colour