Talk:Royal Australian Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rig in the so called '98' photo[edit]

That's wrong. If memory serves correct, the gray coveralls weren't brought in until 2002-2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.247.70 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami[edit]

needs some info on the tsunami releif effort, plus the ppl who died in Nias The bellman 10:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I've worked on this page- adding in a brief history section, and details of current fleet. It could do with some more work plus images. Astrotrain 21:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see something on the Chief of Navy, Maritime Command and Naval Systems Command 202.6.138.34 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SH-2 Seasprite helicopters[edit]

From the table: "Oliver Hazard Perry Class Friagte...Anti-submarine and anti-aircraft frigate with SH-2 Seasprite helicopters "

The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates do NOT embark SeaSPRITES, they have 2 hangers for SeaHAWK helicopters. Many of the ANZAC frigates also have seahawks and not the smaller Seasprites.

  • I've verified this to the RAN website, and updated. Thanks for noticing. Astrotrain 17:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Biggest loss[edit]

The article says: The RAN's biggest single loss of the war was that of the sister ship to Australia, HMAS Canberra at the Battle of Savo Island, in August 1942.

How is this true? Over 600 lives were lost when Sydney went down, but most of Canberra's crew survived. --Surgeonsmate 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst perhaps a misleading terminology, I believe that the phrase in question pertains to the nature of the ships involved in the comparisions (i.e the loss of a Cruiser versus a Light Cruiser) rather than the numbers of casualties (193 to over 600). It may seem slightly cold-hearted but this sort of phrase may be based on a notion that the loss of a Cruiser was of more significance than the lives of the men of HMAS Sydney (effects on Order of Battle and available forces? - despite manpower shortages?) Battlensign 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate the point, and yes, the loss of a cruiser as opposed to a light cruiser hurts the war effort more, though one might also say that saving most of the crew reduced the impact. I've added a few words of clarification. What really brings the Sydney loss home is seeing all those names on the wall at the Australian War Memorial. Most ships have a few names, but those from the Sydney stretch over panel ater panel. --Surgeonsmate 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the War Memorial names wall panels devoted to the HMAS Sydney crew losses and they do stand to make a compelling case for questioning the yardstick used for describing the 'Worst Loss". Having looked at the revisions made on this point, I am inclined to think the changes are well thought out, especially given the fact that there is such a potential for debate on the issue at hand (effect of losses of ships versus skilled manpower etc) and that this is something ideally uncharacteristic of an aspiring encyclopaedia. Battlensign 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning aboard[edit]

Robertson suffered a heart attack 8 miles outside Port Phillip Heads whilst onboard HMAS Yarra and drowned.

Hang about. How did he drown if he was aboard at the time? He was having a tub? He fell over the side? He slumped into his soup bowl? --Surgeonsmate 13:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II[edit]

I thought we declared war on 3 September the same day as britain, not a few days later as indicated in article. Regards Hossens27 09:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite correct. On 3rd September 1939, P.M. Menzies announced "It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war."

The expression "as a result" was a consequence of Australian Government failure to ratify the Westminster Statute of 1931 which effectively divorced Australia from decisions of the British Government. The suggestion that we declared war some days after Britain probably stems from the later endorsement by Cabinet of Menzies' decision. User : Lorexau 25 May 2006

LCDR Fahy[edit]

Following text removed from main article.

In 1989 Robyn Fahy became the first female graduate from the Royal Australian Naval College and to join the Royal Australian Navy and go on to become a lieutenant commander at the West Australian naval base HMAS Stirling.
But in which time she says she was punched, spat on, and more. She says the abuse resumed six years ago at HMAS Stirling, when Lieutenant Commander Fahy stood up for a younger female colleague who had allegedly suffered sexual harassment.
The Lieutenant Commander was then wrongly by a navy reservist doctor diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, and narrowly avoided being sent to a mental hospital. The doctor was found guilty of misconduct by the Western Australian Medical Board.
Lieutenant Commander Fahy and her family have been fighting for an apology and a settlement with the Defence Force ever since.She has now been ordered to return to service.
The Lieutenant Commander has claimed that vilification has been poured on her by the media. She says she has been called a liar, grossly incompetent, a slut, a lesbian, a radical feminist and mentally unstable.
A naval officers has told her that if she tried to return to the HMAS Stirling, she would be "crucified".

___

I do not believe it is appropriate for people to be campaigning in a Wikipedia article on behalf of current, unsubstantiated allegations made by a serving member of the ADF.Nick Thorne 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carriers and subs[edit]

HMAS Albatross was a seaplane carrier, AE1 and AE2, Oxley and Otway were subs, all served pre-WW2. Post war Terrible, Vengeance and Majestic were carriers transferred from the RN in 1947, 1952 and 1955 respectively. Terrible was renamed Sydney, Vengeance was on loan until Majestic was completed with an angled deck and renamed Melbourne. We gained the new O class subs post war. However, we lost our cruisers in and after the war. --Jumbo 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The history section of this article is a real mess at the moment. It has no unifying theme, is poorly structured and the different sections differ greatly in quality (for example, the coverage of the Navy prior to WW1 is excellent while the coverage of the Navy's role in WW2 is very poor and confusing). One approach to fixing it would be to create a History of the Royal Australian Navy article and strip the information in this article back to a very brief overview. Thoughts? --Nick Dowling 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True the pre WW1 info is much better, there does need to be an improvement on WW2 articles eg. Military history of Australia during World War II. The RN and USN history articles are not that comprehensive and long, would an Australian version be a similar length relying on other more specific articles to go into more detail. Hossens27 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the RN and USN history articles would make good models (though I'd like to include more photos!). My motivation in proposing a seperate article is simply to get the (inevitably) wordy history section out the main RAN article to improve its readability. I also agree that the Military history of Australia during World War II entry is incredibly bad - the only way that it could be worse is for it to not exist, which was the case before I started it. --Nick Dowling 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your right if you remove the history section the RAN article is a much easier read. I think we are in agreement over the creation of a seperate article. The new article should propably be seperated by time.
  • Pre federation
  • Federation to WW1, maybe with a seperate article for the formation of the RAN
  • between the wars
  • WW2
  • Cold War period
  • recent time 1990's
  • future of the RAN
do you think it should follow this path or should it follow another. Hossens27 12:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That structure looks very good to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? --Nick Dowling 12:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the seperate page and wrote a brief history of the RAN. Lots of work is needed on both I suspect. --Nick Dowling 05:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sussex Fremantle Austealia 1942[edit]

I am seeking information on the above .I was serving aboard her at this time as a Royal Marine Bandsman and had many friends ashore during our two year attachment at this station ,I would like if possible to find any photographs which may be around as we did, in the short intervals we were in harbour,help with entertainment for the people of Freemantle; one person who was a great supporter of our efforts which included a dance ashore and a childrens party on the ship was a Mrs Robinson, can anyone help please ? ←–bandyjerry

There are a few images at the Australian War Memorial Collection Database [1] type HMS Sussex into search field, dont know if this is of any help. I dont have any info myself on the ship or its actions ashore during the war. Hossen27 11:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks[edit]

I have re-instated the rank of Acting Sub Lieutenant (ASLT) to the list. This is a substantive rank and is equivalent to Pilot Officer in the RAAF, a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army and an Ensign in the USN, it is not the same as "acting whatever" in common usuage.Nick Thorne 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy[edit]

Sure there are other "Royal" navies, but here in Wikipedia, Royal Navy goes to Royal Navy not a disambig page. Lst time I looked, we were writing an encyclopedia not "Royal Navies for dummies"... Will be interesting to see what other editors will say when (and if) it spreads to WWI and WWII articles. Shot info 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks Fixed[edit]

Flag Officers are not called General Officers, this has been changed. A Midshipman is NOT a cadet in the Royal Australian Navy, Midshipmen can be ADFA or Direct Entry Officers. I should know, I am one (DEO). A Lieutenant-Commander is a junior officer. The gold oak leaf on the hat brim denotes seniority, which is first awarded at Commander Rank. In addition, the RAN is not a NATO member country and therefore the rank equivalent system (O-, OR- or E-) is not the same or equal. A Midshipman under this would be OF-D, however I have corrected this page to reflect the pay grade of a Midshipman, which is S-1. Zebde 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Royal Australian Navy Chaplains.gif[edit]

Image:Royal Australian Navy Chaplains.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Armidale at sea.jpg[edit]

Image:HMAS Armidale at sea.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petty Officers[edit]

In this article, Petty Officers have the rank code E-7, in the article Australian Defence Force ranks and insignia they are E-6. Can somebody correct one or other of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.255.240 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dry?[edit]

I can't imagine the RAN being dry, but it's not mentioned. Is it significant? 198.70.200.131 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the RAN is not "dry" (in the context of the United States Navy, where there is no alcohol aboard ships). However, I'm not sure how important that fact is in the "Grand Scheme of ThingsTM" (I personally think very little), or where this fact could be presented in the article if it was decided that it should be included. -- saberwyn 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Australian Navy ships are indeed not "dry", like the United States Navy ships are, but it is not open slather either iand not particularly of note for an encyclopaedia article). Kangaresearch 10:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginnings[edit]

It may be of interest to some, as to just HOW the RAN began. It has come to my understanding through family research, about the move to start the Royal Australian Navy. Commander George Stanley BOSANQUET RN and another Officer, who we think was Captain Lindeman, initiated the process in the late 1800's. This effort eventually came to bear in 1901.

George Stanley came out to Australia in 1877 from England with his wife. Their children were born in Mackay. The eldest boy was my grandfather. My mother who is now 91 still has a colossal memory and was able, through our family papers and books, to give these details.

I hope this may help clarify the early days. I am more than happy to answer any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizhealth1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from article page[edit]

I've moved this here, as it didn't seem appropriately worded for the article.

I don't know if it's correct, so I haven't edited the article.

( Edit: The Australian Navy was not '...officially established in 1911'. The Australian Navy was established in 1901. The only thing that changed in 1911 was that King George V sanctioned the use of 'Royal' before 'Australian Navy'. This is an important distinction and one few historians understand. The Australian Navy did not suddenly come into being in 1911. The Commonwealth Naval Forces was the Australian Navy, and it is a pity that that term was not the only one used. This would have saved much later confusion.) 58.167.199.248

Maybe it can be re-added to the article, after rewording, as a clarification, or reference ? Begoon (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its broadly correct, although I don't think the term "Australian Navy" was ever used as an official title. However, the wording is bad in articlespace...I've reintroduced it with some tweaks, and will find the cites to back it up over the next couple of days. -- saberwyn 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Begoon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet section[edit]

Removed info on deployments and RAN's mission because it is already covered in more detail in other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morzs (talk • contribs)

Project AIR 9000 Phase 8[edit]

Under the "Future" heading, the statement implies the competition is still continuing. Hasn't the Romeo (MH-60R) already been selected as the Seahawk/Seasprite replacement? (118.210.27.145 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ranks[edit]

Thought I should just point out that the rank of 'Commander-In-Chief' does not exist, the 'Postion' is held by both the Monarch of Australian and the Governor General of Australia. Nford24 11:13, 10 November 2011 (AEST)

Women serve in the RAN in combat roles and at sea image[edit]

Judging by the name on the coverall this sailor is Hawaiian, and given the image comes from the US Navy, perhaps she is a US sailor on board an Australian warship?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - according to the US Navy photographer's caption for the image at File:US Navy 040712-N-4304S-152 Aboard the Australian replenishment vessel HMAS Success (AOR 304), Able Seaman Communications Specialist Natalie Haumu, left, from Brisbane, Australia, retrieves a signal flag as the ship begins a Ref.jpg she's from Brisbane. That was the RAN working uniform of the time, and if you zoom in the rank badge on her shoulder is that of an Australian sailor. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that native Hawaiians are Polynesian, as are a great many other pacific islanders including Samoan, Tongan, Maori (New Zealand) etc. There are something like 150,000 Polynesians in Australia, most from the 3 groups mentioned (USA has around 300,000). Its not unexpected to find them in the Australian Navy or that many have surnames similar to those found among other Polynesian peoples. 101.170.170.152 (talk)

File:Aus-Navy-OF9-shoulder.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Aus-Navy-OF9-shoulder.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to cuts in meals paying for future aquistions should be deleted[edit]

It's embarrassing having that silly fact in an article about our navy. I'm guessing a disgruntled sailor has inserted this comment - harden up. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.146.63 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearest case of bullets over butter I've ever seen, but yes it should be restated in terms of the elaborate meals for the brass at the expense of the common sailor. After all you can't buy a modern warship for peanuts nor pudding. BTW, while I have in my life set foot on three continents, Australia isn't one of them. Hcobb (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If the senior commanders are bullied by the pollies into making stupid decisions, and giving even more stupid reasons as justification, they deserve all the derision they get. (And the supporting reference is a reliable source.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/help/aboutus Pdfpdf (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed this tabloid nonsense. These cuts (to the extent that they're real) form part of the Strategic Reform Program, which is a general efficiency drive across the ADF and Department of Defence. Funding for capital projects is provided from a different stream of funding. The amount being saved here is trivial compared to the cost of the major capital projects listed in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just put it back.
I have great respect for your opinion, Nick-D, but on this occassion I feel you have missed the point. Failing that, I feel you have missed the point(s) that I have been trying to make - your response doesn't seem (to me) to have addressed the issue(s) I mentioned, most particularly: If the senior commanders are bullied by the pollies into making stupid decisions, and giving even more stupid reasons as justification, they deserve all the derision they get.
  • First, is the Herald Sun a tabloid?
  • Second, if this is nonsense (which, personally, I think it is), it's not nonsense from the press. (Don't shoot the messenger!)
  • Do these cuts - or more accurately - Does this cut have anything to do with the SRP? As you point out, someone is comparing mole-hills pimples with mountains. And as you also point out, taking drops of water from the blue bucket is not going to have any significant effect on the need to take gallons from the red bucket.
I'm looking forward to thinking about your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Unquestionably 2 ) It's nonsense from people who know nothing about how government finances work or the scale of defence spending; the budget for shipbuilding isn't the same as the budget for meals, especially as the government is requiring that Defence demonstrate progress in making efficiencies from administrative and HR costs (eg, does the amount allocated to the Navy and DMO to buy equipment include an offset for ice cream consumption as this story implies?; nope). We don't include blatant mistakes in articles because they happen to have been published by a newspaper. 3) the story explicitly states that the cuts are part of the SRP ("Navy chiefs have blamed the cost-saving measures on the Strategic Reform Program, which is designed to deliver savings of about $20 billion over 10 years"), the rest seems to be the invention of the journalist. I'd also add 4) the text which was included in the article was blatantly wrong as it implied that the full cost of all the kit is being funding through cuts to other areas, which not even the Herald Sun was claiming. I've just removed it again. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Humpf.
As I said, you seem to continue to avoid the point that I have raised and drawn to your attention.
As I've also said, I disagree.
As I've also tried to make clear, I'm NOT commenting on the "messenger", I'm commenting on the stupidity and the "spin" of the message. If you re-read what I wrote, you should realise that we are in complete agreement on most of the issues.
Well, I've stated my opinion and tried to explain it. You have ignored what I've said. The only place I can see this heading is an edit war. I'm not interested. Bye-bye. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I'm not too happy with the way you've reverted my edits without addressing the points I raised.

You say: It's nonsense from people who know nothing about how government finances work ... . The article quotes the words of Commodore Andrew Smith. If he knows nothing about how government finances work, how did he get to the rank of Commodore, and why are the editors of Navy News broadcasting his words?
You say: We don't include blatant mistakes ... . Just what are the blatent mistakes to which you are referring? Something in the newspaper article, or something that was on the wikipage?
You say: the story explicitly states that the cuts are part of the SRP. No, it doesn't say that at all. As you have quoted, it says "Navy chiefs have blamed the cost-saving measures on the Strategic Reform Program". Yes, which Navy Chiefs? But never-the-less, the story itself is NOT explicitly stating that the cuts are part of the SRP.
You say: the rest seems to be the invention of the journalist. Errr. No. The rest is a series of quotes.
You say: the text which was included in the article was blatantly wrong as it implied that the full cost of all the kit is being funding through cuts to other areas, which not even the Herald Sun was claiming. Errr. No. To quote, the article said: "In order to pay for this new equipment, the service is making cuts in other areas, such as meals for the sailors." That is not only NOT "blatantly wrong", that's exactly how they plan to fund it (i.e. through cuts to other areas). Nobody, not even the article, is suggesting that removing desert from the menu is going to provide billions in savings. In fact, I would say that's the whole point of the article. i.e., the article is stating/implying/whatever that removing desert from the menu is NOT going to provide billions in savings, and that it's disingenuous of the Navy in general, and Commodore Smith in particular, to even vaguely imply that such a "sensible, cost-conscious change" is going to make any significant contribution to the SRP. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of honourary command and allegiance[edit]

A page on the Royal Australian Navy should not miss the fact that HRH the Duke of Edinburgh is an Admiral of the Fleet of the RAN. It is an honourary appointment, but is still of massive significance considering that not many navies have an Admiral of the Fleet. Also, recognition of allegiance to the crown of Australia should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.28.118 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the Duke of Edinburgh is mentioned in the "Commissioned officers" section of the article. In the same section it mentions that commissions are granted by Her Majesty. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including that in the commanders section of the infobox is a bit misleading as the Duke of Edinburgh has no actual role in the RAN's command structure, and certainly isn't its commander. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to remember that HRH The Duke of Edinburgh's rank is 'Admiral of the Fleet' and not his position. Also a bit of trivia, a Fleet Admiral or Admiral of the Fleet is a term sometimes used to represent a Rear Admiral or higher who commands a fleet of 5+ combat ships in a combat operation. Nford24 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2012 (AEST)

another new ship[edit]

[2] 220.238.43.188 (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MSV Skandi Bergen does not have an article but its sister ship does - MSV Skandi Neptune. Nford24 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2012 (AEST)
Yes she does, but under her chartered-to-Customs name, ACV Ocean Protector. -- saberwyn 07:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it? Our article and the associated sources say Skandi Bergen is Ocean Protector, but the Defence press release calls Skandi Bergen a sister to Ocean Protector. I'd wait a couple of days and see if there's a clarification or further development before writing anything here or to the ship article. -- saberwyn 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be the nubuild Skandi Bergen under construction, that has been purchased. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bit late, but definitely confimed as two different vessels. I've started a draft for Australian Defence Vessel (ADV) Ocean Shield (as she is now named) at User:saberwyn/Ocean Shield, but not sure its ready for mainspace yet. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 04:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant Officer of the Navy[edit]

Can I ask a question - I am not authoritative. The article says the Warrant Officer of the Navy is the most senior "sailor" - to my civilian interpretation this includes the officer ranks? The word "sailor" that is. Should it be "the most senior non commissioned officer"?

The Warrant Officer of the Navy (WO-N) is not a rank but a position (for that i do agree), but it does have its own rank insignia which is similar to that of the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army and Warrant Officer of the Air Force. The RSM-A and WOFF-AF have been listed and have their SRI displayed in their respective rank's. army air force Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] for RAN ranks and [4] for RAAF ranks Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but a position - I don't know if it's "a position". It is certainly an appointment.
but it does have its own rank insignia - No. It doesn't.
a) These three people hold the rank of Warrant Officer. Their rank insignia is the insignia of a Warrant Officer.
b) It's not a rank, therefore it can not have a rank insignia. What it does have is a special insignia, and these three appointments wear the special insignia in lieu of their rank insignia.
SRI - What's an SRI? If it's a Special Rank Insignia, then there is no such term. There is a rank insignia, and a special insignia. But no such thing as a Special Rank Insignia.
The Australian army is different to the other two, because the army has three WO ranks: WO2, WO1 & WO. If you look at the army page you will see that the RSM-A is listed under the rank of WO. RSM-A is not a rank.
Quite simply, the RAAF page is wrong. In due course I will correct it, unless somebody else corrects it before I get to it.
Quite simply, the http://www.navy.gov.au/Uniform_Ranks page is wrong. A "Warrant Officer" is neither a Non-Commissioned Officer, nor a Sailor. And also, WO-N is not a rank.
http://www.airforce.gov.au/AboutUs/Ranks.aspx does not say that WOFF-AF is a rank. The title says, quite deliberately: Ranks and Special Insignia of the RAAF.
Repeating myself: WO-N, RSM-A and WOFF-AF are not ranks. They are appointments, and the appointee holds the rank of Warrant Officer. However, rather than wear their rank insignia, they wear the special insignia associated with their appointment.
OK?
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly someone with in excess of 7 years of working in conjunction with and at times working with the RAN is wrong... I give up! Also SRI is the term for 'Soft Rank Insignia' or sometimes though incorrectly used as 'Shoulder Rank Insignia'. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I call your 7, and raise you 11. Plus, I'm exposed to it all working day, every working day, with access to all the documents that have been made electronically available. I have tried to be gentle, subtle and polite (not my strong suits, even at the best of times), but yes, you are wrong. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Defence Force ranks are established by Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 - Regulation 4. Specifically, the ranks are defined in Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 - Schedule 1. In the context of WO-N/RSM-A/WOFF-AF, the terms position, appointment and posting are essentially synonymous. There is no separate rank associated with any of these positions. Legally, RSM-A is a Warrant Officer Class 1 (with a pay grade of Tier D, see ADF Pay & Allowance Chart). In practice, however the situation is somewhat ambiguous. For example:
  • The Army's A Guide to Service Customs for Officers, Warrant Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (authorised by the Chief of General Staff) states that RSM-A holds the rank of Warrant Officer, and Army Standing Orders for Dress refers to RSM-A as wearing 'distinctive badges of rank unique to the appointment' (ASOD Volume 2 Part 4 Chapter 3).
  • The Air Force's AAP5135.003 Manual of Dress (authorised by the Chief of Air Force) states that the insignia for the appointment of WOFF-AF is 'rank insignia' but that upon leaving the appointment, standard WOFF rank insignia is worn.
  • The Navy's ABR81 Uniform Instructions for the RAN (authorised by Chief of Navy) states that WO-N is not a rank but a position that is held. WO-N wears a gilt WO-N badge on shoulder boards, an embroidered WO-N badge on Soft Rank Insignia (SRI) and embroidered WO-N badges in lieu of WO rank insignia on the winter ceremonial coat. However, ABR10 Sailor's Career Management Manual states that the WO-N is identifiable by a distinguishing rank insignia and makes provision for whether WO-N can 'return to the WO rank'.
One could argue that even if the Service Warrant Officers don't have a separate rank, their insignia is still rank insignia - it just means that there are two insignias for the rank - the one worn by the Service Warrant Officer and the one worn by everyone else.
In regards to whether Warrant Officers are non-commissioned officers, in accordance with Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 - Regulation 3, Warrant Officers of all three services are non-commissioned officers (this is literally so as they are officers, a person appointed to a position of authority, appointed by warrant rather than the monarch's commission). By custom they are usually regarded as being a separate category to other non-commissioned officers (the titles of two of the above references attest to this). AusTerrapin (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all rather ambiguous, isn't it? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can say honestly that the references I consulted led me to the opinion I stated. (BTW: That wasn't the opinion I had before I had consulted those references ... )
Also by the way: Another reference is the ADF poster of "Ranks and Special Insignia". As far as I was aware, the only badges that weren't badges of rank were the service WOs. If they, too, are badges of rank, then which badges on the poster are "special insignia"? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been of the understanding and instructed that the Special Insignia was in reference to the Army's Staff Sergeant, because in WW1 and maybe ww2 their rank insignia consisted of a Sergeant's stripes and a Major's Crown. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 21:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For an organisation that is often viewed as being quite black and white, I long ago realised that the ADF is anything but black and white. Consistency is, at best, aspirational and is rarely fully achieved. Unless one wants to 'do their head in', they need to accept that there is a level of duality (or worse) about a variety of aspects of the ADF. Eg for grouping ranks there are several different schema. Defence Personnel Regulations state that only MAJGEN(E) and above are Senior Officers but, depending on the purpose, Army calls COL and BRIG 'Senior Officers' and MAJGEN - FM 'Generals' but for career management COL - MAJGEN are regarded as 'senior officers' (and possibly LTGEN - its moot for GEN/FM). For the purposes of Mess accommodation MAJ(E) and above are regarded as 'senior officers'. In another schema, LT - CAPT are regarded as 'junior officers', 'subalterns' or 'company grade' officers, whilst MAJ-BRIG are regarded as 'field grade' officers. Have I completely confused any one yet? Any attempt to be definitive when these types of factors are at play must also include the context for the schema one is trying to define.
Whilst I haven't seen any documentation on the early history of the SSGT rank in Australia, by the 1960s it was a rank equal to an Artificer, 1st Class in the RAN and a FSGT in the RAAF (on 21 Aug 1996, Defence Force Regulations SR1952 were amended to drop the rank of Artificer, 1st Class and raised the rank of FSGT to be equivalent with CPO and WO2). To my knowledge, the insignia for a SSGT have not been referred to as special insignia for at least the last three decades, and I have no confidence that it has ever been referred to as special insignia. However, special insignia is used to refer to the insignia for the Governor General and the State Governors. It might also be used to refer to the insignia for the RAAF's NCO Cadets (which is not a discrete rank). Notwithstanding, 'special insignia' is merely a descriptive term rather than a prescribed term that has some special standing.
Pdfpdf, as always, I assumed you were acting in good faith. This might be sucking eggs but for this sort of field, there are three principle sources to use (the first three dot points) with other sources of some value but less likely to be definitive:
  • the underpinning legislation and other legislative instruments (eg Defence Regulations and Defence Personnel Regulations) - these will give you the legal position.
  • Defence Instructions and Manuals - these will give you the official organisational position.
  • Service issued guides to customs and traditions - these will give you an authorised view (but not the only interpretation) of aspects extending beyond those covered by legislative instruments, official instructions and manuals (there will be some overlap with those sources).
  • looking at different versions is important to understanding changes over time.
  • Observations from experienced serving/ex-service personnel (particularly where they have paid attention to the topic of interest) - useful to supplement the above; generally not considered a reference by Wikipedia (unless published); need to be careful to understand the limitations on what they can comment on authoritatively (eg I wouldn't ask Nathanael about traditions at ADFA in the early 1990s, but he could talk reliably about Navy Cadet traditions at NTS Noosa during the period 2004-2011).
  • Books/journal articles by military historians - unless the author has prior service experience, they may miss some of the subtleties involved.
  • PR type derivative products (eg the the single service and ADF rank charts) are seldom reliable for any of the finer points of detail. Eg the rank charts exist only to let people identify what the insignia represent and to provide a guide to equivalency - they are not designed to educate people in the distinction between ranks and appointments, etc. Eg earlier versions of the RAAF rank chart, didn't distinguish between special insignia and rank insignia - this is almost certainly because those responsible for designing (and approving the design) were either unaware of the distinction or thought it irrelevant given the intended purpose of the chart.
Nathanael, be wary of relying upon what you were taught about customs and traditions, etc in the ANC. My extensive experience is that whilst a lot of information provided in the ADFC is good, the subtle understanding of why things are done a particular way, where they came from, etc is lost or inadvertently corrupted (this is a particularly high risk in units that don't have instructors with significant prior/current RAN/Army/RAAF service experience as an NCO or Officer); consequently, it pays to check facts with reliable sources. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms[edit]

I have the latest copy of ABR81, would it be worth writing an article based on it in regards to RAN/RANR/ANC uniforms? regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RAN Commissioned ships[edit]

I noticed a recent (now reverted) edit from a contributor that there are fifty five (55) commissioned ships in the RAN with a ref. I check the ref. and it seems to be correct, although the ship ADC Ocean Shield does not have the 'HMAS' prefix, it does have a listed commissioning date '30 June 2012'. So by my reckoning there are 55 commissioned ships in the RAN. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that Ocean Shield, while a vessel of the RAN, is not a commissioned ship. Had she been commissioned, she would be operating with the HMAS prefix (which is reserved for commissioned ships), with a naval (instead of civilian crew), and flying the White Ensign (of the few photos I've seen, none of them show the ship using the White). The lack of fanfare in the media (Navy News and general civilian) compared to the commissioning of HMAS Choules also leads me towards the 'operated but not commissioned' path. As for the entry-into-service date being listed on the RAN website under the "Commissioned" heading, I believe inflexible parameters are to blame. I'll do some digging for something more concrete, though. -- saberwyn 10:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's correct; I've never seen a reference to this ship being 'commissioned' (which the RAN normally makes a big deal out of). It would be interesting to know why she hasn't been formally commissioned given that she was purchased rather than leased and is crewed by the RAN. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually it appears that she's civilian-crewed, which I guess explains why she wasn't formally commissioned. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and the RAN appears to have recently updated its website, and has pointedly not given her a commissioning date here. Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot out of Sydney[edit]

Which article talks about the pivot? Hcobb (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point Australian federal election, 2013 given that it's only an election commitment. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral acronym[edit]

Moved to bottom of page. -- saberwyn 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym for Admiral is ADM, not ADML (WRoss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy Ross (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the RAN Officers Career Management Manual (ABR 6289, relevant page here), the RAN webpage for uniform ranks, or an article in the recent ADFA Academy magazine (see the second article on page 7). All of these use ADML as the official acronym for a full admiral. -- saberwyn 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that mention is made of the current honoury apointment of the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, the fact that the chief of navy is a Vice-Admiral rank, but no mention of when the rank of full Admiral is used in the modern ADF. Chief of the ADF is a 4 star equivalent rank & is rotated through the 3 branches. The last chief of ADF was RAAF, current is Army, so next one will be Navy & will have the rank of Admiral. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned. The current article gives the impression that Admiral is a rank no longer normally obtainable. 101.170.170.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rank of Admiral of the Fleet is not an honorary rank, it is a 'reserved' rank or 'wartime' rank. The current Admiral of the Fleet is the Duke of Edinburgh and holds it as a full (non-honorary) rank. The position of Chief of the Defence Force is held by a 4-star equiv but it does not rotate evenly. The Prime Minister chooses the best person to do the job at the time a new one is needed to be appointed. For example, since 1958 there have only been three (3) Air Force CDF's and five (5) Navy CDF's but there have been nine (9) Army CDF's. Admiral Chris Barrie was the last Navy CDF serving from 1998 until 2002. Determining who will be the next Chief of the Defence Force is as inpredictable as who will be the next Governor General. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition of images[edit]

A few days ago, 24.172.16.91 (talk · contribs) added three images to the article (File:Anzac Iraq.jpg, File:FA-18 Super Hornet VFA-14.jpg, and File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG) in a block under the infobox. I reverted, then the images were re-added by UnbiasedVictory (talk · contribs). I'm not convinced of the usefulness of these images for the following reasons (the below is an expanded version of the edit summary I left when reverting).

  • File:Anzac Iraq.jpg is a WP:Non-free image, which only has a usage rationale for Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (an article in which the image is very relevant). There is no usage rationale for the image for Royal Australian Navy, and such usage would be tenuous at best (as the article does not even mention the event depicted).
  • The primary subject of File:FA-18 Super Hornet VFA-14.jpg is not the Australian warship in the back of the frame, but the United States F/A-18 aircraft locked, cocked, and ready to rock on the catapults of a USN aircraft carrier in the foreground. The prominence of the F/A-18s could confuse the uninitiated by allowing them to assume, in this context, that these are RAN birds on a RAN birdfarm (although if that were the case, inclusion could be more easily argued).
  • As the photographer of File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG, I'm quite happy to say that its not that great an image. While a definite improvement on what was available before for the HMAS Canberra (LHD 02) article, and probably still useful there as the article develops, I don't think its a good enough image to say "This is what we are doing in the future" (which I assume is the intent of adding such a photo here) in the article on the entire navy.
  • The placement of the three right-aligned images in a block under the infobox means that (on my monitor at least), I have to scroll through a screen of mostly-whitespace with some thumbnails on one side between the textual content of the article and the table of ships.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? -- saberwyn 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one of Canberra belongs in the article somewhere given how big a deal these ships are for the RAN, but the one of the US carrier isn't very useful. I've just removed the one of Anzac as it's a non-free image without a rationale for using it in the article (which could potentially lead to the image being deleted). Some interesting photos of Adelaide under construction have been recently uploaded to Flickr under creative commons licenses BTW. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennant number / Hull classification symbol[edit]

According to Pennant number, Australia changed from using the RN-originated pennant number system to "a system based on the U.S. hull classification symbols", but there is nothing in this article about it. I am confused about the correct designation of some RAN vessels, particularly auxiliaries. For example, the replenishment tanker HMAS Success is in WP as OR 304, and that is also used by RAN, see [5]. Yet under US practice I think she would be AOR 304, though only OR 304 or even just 304 would be painted on the bows. Is that a genuine difference to the US system? Davidships (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trying to view the RAN's 'numbers-on-ships' system through the eyes of Our Lords And Masters (with either USN-eyes or RN-eyes) is that it doesn't fit either view. I currently don't have access to the source I normally use to back up that claim in articles, so can't comment in relation to RS, but from what I've gathered on the subject, 'numbers-on-ships' in the RAN is a complicated issue. The post-1969 change to USN-like system seems to have included:
  1. changing the 'font' of the painted numbers from Commonwealth smallish-amidships to US large-bow
  2. Deleting the letters from the 'hull number' when painted on the side (except, unlike the USN, not applied to mine warfare, amphibious warfare, or auxiliary vessels)
  3. Subscribing to the briefly held US opinion that There Are No Such Things As Frigates
  4. Using a home-grown number sequence for new ships instead of trying to wedge them into the Royal Navy sequence
From there, its grown into its own system, where the RAN copies the Yanks sometimes, use what's painted on the side sometimes, don't use what's painted on the side sometimes, or when all else fails, makes stuff up. If the RAN says that Success is currently identified as OR 304, that's what Wikipedia will use. -- saberwyn 01:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:List_of_active_Royal_Australian_Navy_ships#USN_Hull_Classification_Symbols_vs._Flag_Superiors, a related discussion from a few years back. -- saberwyn 01:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks, Again[edit]

Seriously, There has to be some way to show what the rank insignia looks like. But the images are always deleted. Toothpickst (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

call for discussion[edit]

Another contributor reverted an addition I made to this article. I added MV Sycamore (ship, 2017). The other contributor's edit summary was "not a RAN vessel - its owned and will be operated by DMS Marine for the RAN under contract".

Agreed, the vessel is owned by a private firm, and leased to the RAN.

But, its design is a military one. Its design is based on Damen Group's OPV 2400 design -- ie "Offshore Patrol Vessel". All the references say it primary purpose is to train military pilots, secondary purposes include training military divers, and responding to disasters, like other naval vessels. Other navies use leased support vessels, not dissimilar to the support vessels they own outright. I'd argue for them to be covered in the article for those navies as well. Geo Swan (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table you added it to was a list of the RAN's current ships, of which this is not one. It is also not a patrol boat, either in design or purpose. It is an auxiliary contracted to support military training. There is a list of DMS Marine's ships at List of Defence Maritime Services vessels to which I have added it. I've also added a link from this to that article, which I'm surprised wasn't here already. A broader discussion of whether to include civilian-owned and operated auxiliary ships in articles on Navies should take place elsewhere, but I suspect that the answer will be 'no'. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw your link to the list of contracted auxiliaries. Okay, you convinced me. I drop my concern. Geo Swan (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Australian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Australian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request update to page to display current RAN badge[edit]

Information to be added or removed: Please update the RAN badge on the page to the current RAN badge. Explanation of issue: The RAN badge image currently used on the page has not been in official use for many years. References supporting change: Details of the current approved Royal Australian Navy badge is available on the Navy website at http://www.navy.gov.au/protecting-royal-australian-navy-badge. Permission to download and use this image on the Royal Australian Navy Wikipedia page is granted. Ash Holland, Navy Group Web Manager - Internet, Navy Headquarters, Canberra.

Awh71 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 18-JAN-2019[edit]

  Unable to implement  

  • The image of the navy badge must be uploaded to Wikipedia before it can be added to the article. You may accomplish this with the File Upload Wizard.
  • Once the file has been uploaded along with the appropriate usage license, please reopen this request by altering the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no.

Regards,  Spintendo  07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Royal Australian Navy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Royal Australian Navy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structural Changes[edit]

I propose that the Structure be modified to increase readability. The proposal would look something like this

  • History
  • Structure
    • Command
    • Fleet
    • Aviation
  • Personnel
  • Ranks and Uniform
  • Ships and Equipment (takes Current ships out of structure)
  • Current operations
  • Future

This would increase readability in my opinion IronBattalion (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rank Table Updates[edit]

Hello, currently I'm working on updates to rank tables across the ADF branches and in my opinion have primarily finished this one


NATO Code OR-9 OR-8 OR-7 OR-6 OR-5 OR-4 OR-3 OR-2 OR-1
Australia Other Ranks Insignia Petty Officer Leading Seaman Able Seaman Seaman No insignia
Rank Title: Warrant Officer of the Navy Warrant Officer Chief Petty Officer Petty Officer Leading Seaman Able Seaman Seaman Recruit
Abbreviation: WO CPO PO LS AB SMN RCT

Is there any objections to this? IronBattalion (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection, however, regarding rank abbreviations, all abbreviations are in capitals (RCT, SMN, AB etc). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NATO Code OF-10 OF-9 OF-8 OF-7 OF-6
Australia Flag Officer rank insignia
Rank title: Admiral of the Fleet Admiral Vice Admiral Rear Admiral Commodore
Abbreviation: AF ADML RADM VADM CDRE
NATO Code OF-5 OF-4 OF-3 OF-2 OF-1 OF(D)
Officer rank:
Rank title Captain Commander Lieutenant Commander Lieutenant Sub Lieutenant Acting Sub Lieutenant Midshipman
Abbreviation CAPT CMDR LCMDR LEUT SBLT ASLT MIDN

The Second phase. I NEED Feedback cause it is the worst one I'm working on. I did it this to conserve space and to not allow the page to move horizontally (Like 'Ranks of the ADF' page) IronBattalion (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback. Australia uses both its own rank code system and NATO's, of which both are slightly different. NATO regards Acting Sub Lieutenants and Sub Lieutenants as the same rank, in the RAN they are separate ranks with their own codes, ASLT (O1) and SBLT(O2) which results in 11 O grades total. Also, all officer rank abbreviations are capitalised as well (MIDN, ASLT, SBLT, LEUT, LCDR, CMDR, CDRE, RADM, VADM, ADML, AF). Last note, Midshipman are not officer cadets, they're fully commissioned and from the outset but lack a rank designation code in Australia. This may prove helpful, https://www.navy.gov.au/about/organisation/ranks Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll fix up the abbreviation. Howeve I'm unsure about the changes with the code as I'm trying to achieve parity across the branches of the ADF and they mostly use NATO designations. That being said I am not implementing your final piece of advice since goes along with the idea of parity, and for all intents and purposes midshipman are Officer cadets; a note could be added to explain the special situation though. I appreciate your advice. IronBattalion (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do "senior service" link to "navy"?[edit]

in the first sentence "The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is the Senior Service of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)" Senior service just link to the concept of a "navy", not even a redirect but a direct link so and the navy page do not contain a single mention to what a "senior service" is.

If it is just some odd synonym for navy I suggest that a reference is added that point that out and the link might as well be dropped given that the navy part in that "The royal Australian navy" should clue anyone in that this is a navy not a airforce.

If it means that it was the branch first established than I senior service is changed to "first established branch of" and the link is dropped.

. Agge.se (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See The Senior Service – Why is the Navy so often called? - Nick Thorne talk 11:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the term as an easter egg, as "Senior Service" isn't a synonym for "navy" in general, and won't be understood by many readers. If the concept is relevant, it can be mentioned elsewhere in the article. BilCat (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Senior Service" was only added in this edit by an IP on December 1, as part of "grammar changes". I've corrected a few more of their changes to the lead, but someone else may want to go through the rest of their edits to make sure they are accurate, especially the links and overcapitalization. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No of ships in commission[edit]

The following was posted on my talk page:

you claim to have an interest in the Australian navy but keep adding numbers that aren't current. read recent ABC articles about the recent ship decommissioning's before making future changes please. Aussie information editor (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aussie information editor: The references used to support the changes made by you do not in fact support the change in numbers. The reference needs to explicitly state numbers used in a Wikipedia article per WP:V and not be based on calculation per WP:SYNTH as it appears to have been done here. - Nick Thorne talk 12:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick, I read your synthesis and verification links.
Firstly with verifiability the RAN website is pretty old and only gets updated on an irregular basis. the ABC and the Defence Australia pages are much more reliable sources given they are much more regularly updated.
Secondly with the original research claim it clearly states in the section below that routine calculations are accepted for things such as basic arithmetic. See Wikipedia:CALC Aussie information editor (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aussie information editor The references you are using do not clearly outline the current state of the fleet but rather link to the ABC profiles of individual journalist which is an WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violation, specifically "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". SNITZ01 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply @SNITZ01. could you please explain which is the correct number of commissioned ships? there seems to be conflicting numbers on the page which i'm trying to fix but others are struggling to understand.
A. The royal Australian navy website [6] which is 36 if you don't include the 5 cape class non commissioned vessels
B. The info box in the top corner of the Royal Australian Navy which in the current version says 38 commissioned ships even though the source links to the website mentioned in part A.
C. Further down on the Royal Australian Navy page in the ships and equipment section the current ship count is apparently 42 which contradicts both A and B
D. The number I was trying to add which is 34 was based on Part A and then including the news regarding the decommissioning of HMAS Shepparton and HMAS Benalla [7] Aussie information editor (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aussie information editor Ideally for wikipedia the RAN site wouldn't be used, however, it seems to be the most reliable source. To hit each of your points.
A. The RAN site does list the reports 42 and there are 42 vessels listed, 36 of which the RAN lists as commissioned, however, that list seems to only include 'front line' ships and does not include auxiliary ships owned by the RAN but operated by civilians. For example, ADV Reliant, STS Young Endeavour and MV Sycamore.
B. It would reasonable to update the info box to list 36 commissoned vessels.
C. The list you provided shows 'front line' ships, there is a separate list of auxiliary ships also owned by the RAN.
D. A way I see around this until the RAN site is updated or another accurate source is found is by saying something along the lines of "With the decommissioning or HMA Ships Shepparton and Benalla the the number of commissioned ship stands at 34. [cite RAN ships and ABC article] The RAN also possosses 6 Cape Class Patrol Boats and [x number] auxiliary ships which are non-commissioned. [cite RAN ships and RAN other ships]. Doing this is not ideal, though. It would be good to get @Nick Thorne and @BilCat to provide feedback given they reverted the previous edits. SNITZ01 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Australian_Navy&oldid=1209838060"