Talk:Australian Defence Force ranks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Defence Force ranks is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Nitpick in Chaplain subsection.[edit]

I noticed the following in the Chaplain section of the "Notes" :...The heads of the various churches and religions officially associated to the ADF's Religious Advisory Committee, such as the Anglican and Catholic Bishops of the Military, hold a two star (O-8 Rear Admiral/Major General/Air Vice Marshal) status. ...

(My bolding).

Is this correct for a article about Australian ranks? "Two star" would refer to a Major General in US service, but is it a universal concept? Not quite sure enough to "be bold". :-) Johnmc (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe it applies to the whole universe, but it certainly applies to NATO, Australia, and much of Asia ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rank Comparison Seaman/Aircraftsman/Private.[edit]

After initial trade training in all three ADF Services a new Seaman/Aircraftsman/Private must satisfy the same criteria to be re-classified to the next level (Able Seaman/Leading Aircraftsman/Private [Proficient]) namely:

  • Airforce (Defence Instruction (Airforce) Personnel 5-4, Para 5.4)
    • a. 12 months productive service has been completed after completion of the initial trade training or after completion of recruit training where already trade qualified;
    • b. the LAC/LACW trade test and/or prerequisite courses of the particular mustering have been passed (if required in accordance with the particular occupational specification); and
    • c. they are considered suitable in all respects for advancement to the higher classification by their Commanding Officer (CO).
  • Army (PACMAN Vol 2, Chap 3, Part 2, Division 3, Para 3.2.30(1.).) -
  • 1. This clause applies to an Army member with the rank of Private. The member is paid as Private Proficient if they meet all of the following conditions.
    • a. They have completed initial training for their employment category.
    • b. They have completed at least 12 months’ service after finishing training.
    • c. They are proficient in their military trade or skill.
  • Navy (ABR 10 Chapter 5 Para 5.11)
    • In addition to any category specific qualifications, the basic requirement for promotion to AB is 12 months effective service as a SMN (qualified). The principle of effective service is to provide sailors with the time to consolidate the skills and knowledge obtained on initial category course through on-the-job training, in addition to furthering their general naval knowledge…

Gl359 (talkcontribs) 06:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Army: PACMAN Vol 2, Chap 3, Part 2, Division 3, Para 3.2.30(1.) - Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rank Comparison Warrant Officer 2 / Flight Sergeant /Chief Petty Officer[edit]

The chart shows WO2, CPO and FSGT to be E8 equivalents. However the WO2 is classified as a Warrant Officer whereas CPO and FSGT are NCOs. Does this mean that the WO2 is senior to the CPO and FSGT? -- (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. As you say, they are all E8 equivalents.
I'll have a look in PACMAN. (Or you could have a look in PACMAN!) -

"3. This table shows the equivalent ranks. (This subclause is policy guidance)"

Item Navy Army Air Force
13. Warrant Officer Warrant Officer, Class 1 Warrant Officer
14. Chief Petty Officer Warrant Officer, Class 2 Flight Sergeant
15. Staff Sergeant
16. Petty Officer Sergeant Sergeant
Nup. PACMAN says they're the same. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Staff Sergeant and Flight Sergeant used to be equivalent ranks in the Australian Armed Forces as they still are in the British and New Zealand Armed Forces - the rank insignias are still identical even though the ranks no longer correspond. -- (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that Staff Sergeant no longer existed. I'll see if I can track it down and see what it actually does say. --Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to the SSGT rank being discontinued in 2006 I believe it was a little earlier than that but don't have a reference to hand at the moment (online search of Army News didn't help either. The rank has technically not ceased, merely there are no further promotions to it. Existing SSGTs continue unaffected. Whilst it is uncommon to see SSGTs in the Regular forces, it is not uncommon to see them in the Reserve Forces.
The distinction with respect to CPO/WO2/FSGT is that CPO and FSGT are Senior Non-Commissioned Officers whereas WO2 are emphatically not, they are Warrant Officers. Notwithstanding, these days they are paid the same (provided they are in the same pay group) and are expected to fulfill the same range of Joint positions. Typically WO2 also have a stronger background in regimental discipline (even those in the trade streams) due to the different service cultures, however that is POV and will probably be seen as contentious by RAN/RAAF and there are unlikely to be reliable secondary sources.
With respect to Brigadiers as Generals, technically the answer is no they are not; they, along with Colonels (but not Lieutenant Colonels) are Senior Officers having said that, they are treated no differently to Commodores and Air Commodores, are equally part of the Senior Leadership Group, are semi-formally referred to as 1-star officers and, whilst technically incorrect, are often as not referred to within the services as being of general rank in the same way as Commodores are referred to as being flag rank and Air Commodores as air rank. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

General / Flag officers[edit]

In regards to the most senior section for officers; it is titled "General/Flag officers" Should it not be titled: General/Flag officers/Air Officers? I believe that whilst not common Air Commodore and above can be referred to as such see pages 69, 133, 137 and 171 of The Quiet Man by Sir Neville McNamara

ta, nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


As per [Defence Force Badges of Rank and Special Insignia], the rank of Brigadier is Equivalent to a Commodore and Air Commodore and therefore should be placed in the correct spot. Brigadier in the Australian Army is a 1 Star rank. Regards Nford24 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (AEST)

It already is in the correct spot now.
Yes, the rank of Brigadier is Equivalent to a Commodore and Air Commodore
Yes, Brigadier in the Australian Army is a 1 Star rank.
However, a brigadier is NOT a general. Please read Australian Army officer rank insignia.
Pdfpdf (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a 'Citation Needed' next to the statement.Nford24 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2012 (AEST)
Next to which statement? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Reference 3 of Australian Army officer rank insignia.Nford24 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2012 (AEST)
OK. (Thanks.) Nevertheless, it's a fact. You are just as capable as I am of tracking it down. (After all - I'm "semi-retired", and you're a "young turk"!) I know there's a relevant reference somewhere - it's just that with my early-onset-alzhimers, I can't remember where ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I honestly can't be bothered looking for the reference or argueing the point, the army has never been my strong point (tends to go over my head anyway) the navy is my field. you win. Regards Nford24 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2012 (AEST)
LOL! I honestly can't be bothered looking for the reference or argueing the point Neither can I!
Well, it's bin night (and recycling night too.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I happily cede the RAN to you - not my field! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Army Equivalent Ranks[edit]

Needs some where references to Bombadier, Lance Bombadier and all the Private Equivilant Ranks in the Army eg. Sapper, Sig, Trooper, Craftsman etc. Depending on the Corps, Army has a few alternative ranks particularly at PTE level. --TinTin (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
See Australian Army enlisted rank insignia#Private Soldier Ranks: Sapper (SPR) / (Private (rank)) Private (PTE) / (Trooper (rank)) Trooper (TPR) / (Gunner (rank)) Gunner (GNR) / (Signalman (rank)) Signalman (SIG) / Craftsman (CFN) / Musician (MUSN) --Pdfpdf (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This is both relevant and interesting. --Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Defence Force ranks. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)