Talk:Australian Defence Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAustralian Defence Force is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 26, 2018.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 24, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 9, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
June 26, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 9, 2011, February 9, 2013, February 9, 2015, February 9, 2016, February 9, 2018, February 9, 2022, and February 9, 2024.
Current status: Featured article


Assessment of capabilities section - update or remove?[edit]

The 'Assessment of capabilities' section is due for an update as part of the overall update of this article I'm (slowly!) working though. However, I'm a bit concerned that as the section can only be subjective and the range of opinions is limited it might be best to remove it all together. A key problem is that there simply aren't many sources of objective yet independent assessments of the ADF - the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is by far the best source, but only has a small number of analysts, the analysis published by the Kokoda Foundation is interesting but generally forward-looking rather than focused on the current ADF, I'm a bit skeptical about the Australian Defence Association's neutrality (and they mainly source the more detailed analysis they publish from ASPI or Kokoda Foundation analysts anyway) and the ANU's Strategic & Defence Studies Centre is primarily focused on strategic issues in Australia's region. I rather like having a section which summarises the ADF's current strengths and weaknesses, and ASPI has recently updated their analysis of the ADF, but would be interested in seeing other editors' thoughts on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is sometimes criticsed for their War hawk viewpoint. I believe the Lowy Institute may have also done some writing on the topic. Their are other forgein entities (including think tanks) in the U.S and UK that that have provided assessments on the ADF in recent times. Aditionally individuals such as former Lt. Gen. Mick Ryan have provided some assessment. SNITZ01 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ASPI wasn't a controversial body when I wrote the above in 2010. As you note, it has since become controversial. This section has been removed since then. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year of establishment[edit]

Copied from my talk page:

Hi! I have a bit of a problem with the ADF article being categorised "1976 establishments in Australia" and "Military units and formations established in 1976". I would have less problem with a date of 1901, but even that has its problems. Obviously, "somebody" co-ordinated the three arms (well, initially two arms) of the military in the period 1901-1975 - but they didn't have the name "ADF". The ADF is still a somewhat nebulous concept - no-one is employed by the ADF; even the current Chief of the ADF is still employed by the Australian Army. I don't know what the best solution might be. (But removal of those two categories you added would remove the problem!) Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the categories pending discussion here as to their appropriateness. Tim! (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Horner's history of the establishment and first decades of the ADF explicitly states that "The Australian Defence Force slipped quietly into existence on 9 February 1976". Until the late 1950s only loose coordination arrangements existed between the services (with the Secretary of the Department of Defence playing the main coordination role during World War II), and the service chiefs were fairly free to go their own way if they so wished (which they quite often did). In 1958 the position of 'Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee' was established to provide inter-service advice to the Minister of Defence, but the holder of this position had no authority over the chiefs of the individual services, and the level of coordination remained weak. It wasn't until the Defence Force Reorganisation Act 1975 came into effect on 9 February 1976 that the services were placed under the legal authority of a single individual (the 'Chief of Defence Force Staff') and serious attempts to coordinate their activities began. David Horner's book spells this out in some detail, though he notes that the concept of a single 'ADF' wasn't widely acknowledged until the 1980s. As such, the categories seem appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say they were not appropriate. Nor did I say they were not accurate. What I said was that I had a bit of a problem with them. My problem is with the word "established". The implication is that there was nothing there before. As I said: Obviously, "somebody" co-ordinated the three arms (well, initially two arms) of the military in the period 1901-1975. And that same "somebody" (or bodies) must have had some sort of legal authority - or "power" - to do it. Does that make my problem clearer? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone did coordinate the services properly before this time. There seem to have been unofficial arrangements, and the Minister for Defence obviously had overall legal authority, but the service chiefs were the bosses of their services and could ignore everyone but the minister if they wished. Horner gives examples of the problems this lead to (eg, differences in doctrine and force structures not lining up properly). I recommend Horner's book. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. So basically, the minister had responsibility for the job, whether he chose to do it or not! Interesting. Yes, it sounds like I do need to read Mr Horner's book, (along with the other books on the "yet to be read" shelf, and the pile of "papers to be read"). When I've done that, I'll re-consider if I still have a problem. Thank you for that. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Material on 2012 budget cuts[edit]

(moved from User talk:Nick-D)

I edited the "Current Expenditure" section of the ADF article with the US concerns about Australian defence spending in 2012. I didn't leave an explanation because I'm relatively new to this and didn't know it was required. The articles cited are from 2012, which is much more recent than many in the overall article and I think still relevant because Australian defence spending has not been raised as a percentage of GDP since. I have taken the word "recent" out though, due to subjectivity.

Regarding your second comment, I think that American defence spending cuts since are irrelevant to the discussion. They have not retracted their critisism and neither has Tony Abbott so I consider that they both stand. Incidentally, even after cuts the Americans spend roughly double on defence as a proportion of GDP as Australia does.

Cheers. Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-removed this material. This article is about the ADF, and not short-term political debates. The Liberals have since released various statements on defence spending which boil down to pretty much the same thing as the ALP's expressed policy - eg, to not cut below the current level, and an aspirational target of increasing spending by 3% a year at some undefined future date when money becomes available (see page 48 of their overall policy document [_pages.pdf here]). Abbott criticizes pretty much everything the government does (which is the job of an opposition leader; Rudd and Beazley did the same) so there's no particular need to single this out. I really don't see the relevance of the US Government's reported concerns (which I don't think have ever been stated publicly) - the US is always whinging about its allies not spending as much as it does (virtually none of the NATO countries meet the spending targets), often in more strident terms (Robert Gates delivered several public lectures about the low NATO spending), and it's currently slashing defence spending itself and is expected to keep doing so. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott is the alternative Prime Minister of Australia and if he wins the next election will determine the shape of the ADF for years to come. That makes his opinion on what we should be spending on defence relevant in the leadup to the election - there is nothing to say that Wiki articles should only be "long term" - otherwise there wouldn't be articles on up coming elections at all. Therefore I have reverted it again. However, I take your point about the Liberals aspirational spending target so have referenced their policy in article.

Your point about the relevance of the American's point of view is subjective and I have reverted it. Donald Rumsfelt raised these concerns publicly while he was defence secretary and Richard Armitage has as well in the article that I have provided, as have other senior officials identified in the articles that I have provided . Personally I find the view of our major ally more relevant than an assessment of capability by some defence academic or thinktank, of the type quoted throughout the article, though others might disagree. The appropriate approach to resolving this is to report all opinions from a sources with a stake and expertise in the debate, make sure that it is identified as opinion and not fact, and then let the reader decide whether or not they agree. Otherwise take all the opinions, like the "assessment of capability" section, out of the article.

Can we discuss this without edit warring? I don't see the relevance of the views of onald Rumsfeld and Richard Armitage - Rumsfeld quit in 2006 and Armitage is a Republican who doesn't hold any position in the Obama administration (as far as I'm aware). The story you posted rests entirely on unnamed 'US officials' being reported to have complained during talks with the Secretary of the Department of Defence. Your material about the Liberals' target is wrong BTW - their stated goal (which is also the ALP's) is to increase the growth of the defence budget by 3% a year once finances allow. The Defence budget makes up a much higher proportion of government expenditure. BTW, given that this is a featured article, can you please take care with grammar and consistent referencing? Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 143 mentions critisism by the current US commander of Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Lockyear, so you are incorrect that there are no named current officials who have made the complaint. I mention Rumsfeld and Armitage to demonstrate that this is an ongoing issue, and because they were both senior US officials with an interest in the alliance and who worked closely with Australia. I consider the views of our major ally on the capability of our defence force is relevant to an article relating to Australian defence policy, because they are the ones who might not come to assist us if they do not consider us to be pulling our weight. If the Americans are irrelevant to our defence, why would there even be a section on our foreign alliances in the article?

In any case, if you don't think it is relevant then it is your right to ignore that content. However, others may think differently and value the perspective of the American's and the Opposition. I think it is inappropriate for these articles to be censored because of one person's point of view. I reiterate that the appropriate treatment for these controversial issues is to put both sides of the argument and then let the reader decide. That is what I have done.

Thank you for the edits on the Liberal policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the approach that I have proposed is consistent with the Wikipedia article policies on Neutrality (equal weighting, neutral tone) and Verifiability (major newspapers are considered to be a reliable source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crikeydick (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info under 'Women In The ADF'[edit]

1) citation 133 missing 2) percentage of women in ADF as of 2014-2015 financial year incorrectly calculated/misleading: not 30.6%, this figure has been arrived at by simply adding the two percentages of total permanent and total reserve women in the ADF (14.5% and 16.1% respectively). Thus the overall percentage should actually read as 15.3% as an average of the two figures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.158.189 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm I wonder who made that mistake! I've just corrected the figure: thanks for pointing this out. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Pro Article[edit]

Is there many edits from Aust Gov computers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelawlollol (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Department of Defence computers have firewalls that prevent them from editing Wikipedia. Not sure about the rest of the government, but I would assume the same. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update in progress[edit]

I'm currently giving this article a - long overdue in many respects - major update. Please bear with me while the references are a mess, and content rapidly changes. And of course contributions from other editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 10:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 03:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADFHQ established 01 Jul 17[edit]

Parking this here for later discussion and / or inclusion.

  • "ADFHQ standing up 01 July". Australian Army (Press release). 27 June 2017. Anotherclown (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this in Army News, but the story wasn't clear about how ADFHQ fits in with the other high-level headquarters (eg, whether it means that Army, Navy and RAAF HQs have been subsumed into it, and how HQJOC relates). Do you know if any organisation charts or similar have been released? The most recent Defence portfolio budget statement provides the pre-1 July organisation charts, and annoyingly doesn't seem to mention this change. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nick no I don't. I agree that this is unclear from the sources currently available which was one of the reasons why I haven't updated the article myself (it seems I'm not the only one confused at least). Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The Department of Defence's summary of the ADO's organisation ([1] also seems to be as at 22 May - hopefully it's updated soon so the article can be corrected. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit in this article - see "Joining the forces: New headquarters raised to improve capability generation". Army: The Soldiers' Newspaper (1399 ed.). Canberra: Department of Defence. 29 June 2017. p. 2. ISSN 0729-5685. It states: "In practical terms the Chiefs will all be posted to ADFHQ reporting to CDF, and all their HQ staff will be part of ADFHQ. However, what doesn't change is that the Chiefs are still in command of their service, responsible for developing their specialised workforces and delivering advanced capabilities for joint forces." Unfortunately though that is still probably not clear enough. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a bit unclear. It does seem that the three service HQs have been combined, but hopefully something more explicit will come along. The next Defence annual report later this year should clarify it. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 14:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Defence Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 16:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments request[edit]

Hi Nick-D, you asked for any comments re ADF. I've added some suggestions/queries but I don't think any are urgent for tomorrow's main page appearance, except maybe the inconsistency in numbers in the TFA blurb.

Personnel numbers

  • TFA blurb says:
    "strength of just under 80,000 full-time personnel and active reservists," but also says:
"with nearly 60,000 full-time active-duty personnel and 22,000 active reservists"
  • Article lede says:
"just under 80,000 full-time personnel and active reservists" and
"ADF's 58,206 full-time active-duty personnel and 21,694 active reservists" - (79,900) so all good
  • Section Personnel / numbers
Intro prose says at June 2017, 58,206 perm, 21,678 active reservists but table says 21,694 reservists.
The column for the 3 reserves adds up to 19,757 but shows total of 21,694.
Total across row for air force is iffy. I think problem is in the figure for raaf reserve ie 3,133. If 3,133 is correct, the row total would be 14,388 + 3,133 = 17,521, (which would in turn break other totals.)
If it's the total which is correct then the 3,133 should be 5,070?
I'd stuffed up the RAAF figure (by doing the calculations the dumb way with a calculator rather than Excel) - fixed in the article and the blurb Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

general bits

  • Everywhere in article, including in the ADF templates, order of branches = RAN, Army, RAAF. Exception is infobox. Is this intentional, in order of establishment?
    • Yes, it's the common way the services are ordered in most reliable sources, presumably for that reason. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • adviser v advisor
  • 2016 Defence White Paper - is italicised in some place, in others not
  • class - search for 'class' finds some ships that may possibly need a hyphen and/or italics

Role

History

  • "...which protected the Australia embassy..." - Australian (or Embassy of Australia)
  • "In line with a promise made..." - commitment?
  • "...Liberal-National Party Abbott Government..." sounds a bit like the Qld party, maybe add coalition?
  • "...rules based order globally." - rules-based?
  • "Relatively few young Australians consider joining..." - slightly ambiguous ie relative to? ie fewer than previous intakes or than other countries, other careers?
    • Didn't need the first word. Thanks for these - all done Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current structure

  • redlink Navy Strategic Command - doesn't need the dab, should turn blue
  • "The Chiefs are also the CDF's principal advisor on matters..." - advisors plural? or 'Each Chief'?
  • "...Committee chaired by the CDF and also includes the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Joint Operations..." - which also includes? or the Commitee also includes?
  • "...headed by the Chief Joint Operations..." - insert 'of'?

Logistic support

  • Joint Logistics Command red link - the newish article Chief of Joint Capabilities has a Joint Logistics Command section - should the red link (temporarily) redirect there?
    • I'd rather not, as this appears to be only part of their responsibilities. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...several months worth..." - apostrophe?
  • "...several weeks worth..." - apostrophe?

Military intelligence and surveillance

  • "...within the Department of Defence supports the services and co-operate with the..." - co-operates
  • "...though the DIGO has staff in Bendigo..." - what is DIGO or just a typo DIO?
  • "...jointly staffed by the DSD and personnel..." - DSD acronym not yet used
  • "... works with the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and has..." - already linked and abbreviated 2 sentences prior

Personnel

  • numbers per above
  • "...the Officer Training School – RAAF Base East Sale..." - wlink Officers' Training School RAAF?
  • "...decreased between the 2003–04 to 2005–06 financial due to problems..." - is that financial 'years'?
  • "...and the commercialisation of some elements of the military." - privatisation?
  • "The size of the ADF has growth between..." - grown or seen growth?
  • "There have been long-running debates over whether..." - mention between who (seeing ref not accessible)?
    • I think we can do without this Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defence expenditure

  • "...one Hobart-class destroyers..." - remove s?
  • "...and 3 S-70 Seahawk anti-submarine helicopters (with the S-70s to be retired in December that year),..." - were they?
  • "...6 Squirrels, with the later also due to be retired..." - were due?

Domestic responsibilities

  • "The arrangements through which this are done are set out..." - 'these' are done or this 'is'?

Refs

  • ref 215 (Council of Australian Governments 2015) doesn't work?

Image captions

  • Russell Offices alt=A group of multi-story office buildings - storey
  • Marchers "...Regiment marching on ANZAC day 2006" - style should be Anzac Day?
    • I think that the first one is OK, and have fixed the other Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, sorry this is a bit "11th hour". Pls just ignore anything not useful. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are excellent - thanks a lot for your time Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a comprehensive article! JennyOz (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governor General as commander in chief[edit]

The statement in the article and the infobox that the GG is the commander in chief of the ADF is supported by the source given. It's also supported by the GG's website: [2] ("Under Section 68 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, although in practice he or she acts only on the advice of Ministers of the Government.") and the Parliamentary Education Office [3]. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retired population[edit]

Is data available on the number of living, retired ADF personnel? If so, could that data be added to this article please? --Danimations (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the article about the warcrimes in afhanistan?[edit]

? Olidikser (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is here: War crimes in Afghanistan, although the lack of mention of the Brereton Report in this article is a significant shortcoming, and should be rectified as soon as possible. If I have time, I will add some material soon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is due for an update, and the Brereton Report's findings and the action being taken on it (and the lackthereof) will warrant coverage. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 update[edit]

I've started the long-overdue process of updating this article. Contributions from other editors, and/or comments here about issues that need to be fixed or updates that are needed, would be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Defence_Force&oldid=1213283649"