Talk:Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Military history: Aviation / Culture / South Pacific Start‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Are the rank codes for the non-commissioned ranks accurate? he WO1/WOFF is classified as an E8 whereas the British ranks of the same name would be OR9/E9. --LONDON 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is incorrect.
An LAC and Able Seaman are not equiv to a LCPL. A LCPL is an NCO, the other two are not.
Further, the US equivalences are incorrect. The first rank that is an NCO in the US system is an E4, thus LCPL equates to E4, not E2. 130.194.13.105 (Talk) 10:01, 24 January 2007

That depends on what US service you are talking about. In the US Army, two ranks are present in paygrade E4, Specialist and Corporal. A Corporal is an NCO but a Specialist is not and a Corporal holds authority over a Specialist. In the US Air Force, an E4 is a Senior Airman, which is not an NCO (though they can be Military Training Instructors at USAF basic training). However, until the mid-90's the USAF also had the grade of "Sergeant" in E4, which was an NCO and ranked above a Senior Airman. In the US Marine Corps an E4 is a Corporal, which is an NCO. In the US Navy and US Coast Guard an E4 is a Petty Officer 3rd Class, which is an NCO. Since Australian ranks are British-derived, it is difficult to equate them with US ranks. Another example: in the US armed forces, Warrant Officers are an intermediate grade between NCO's and commissioned officers who are usually experts in a technical field, except in the USAF, which does not use Warrant Officers. Warrant Officers in the US forces are saluted and referred to as "Sir" or "Ma'am" by enlisted ranks, and as "Mister" or "Miss" in everyday usage. RAAF WO's are more like USAF Senior and Chief Master Sergeants, AFAIK.--MarshallStack 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403033424/http://www.defence.gov.au/copyright.cfm to http://www.defence.gov.au/copyright.cfm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Position - ADF SENIOR ENLISTED LEADER

A new position is to be created comparable to that of the SEAC to the US and UK and will sit above the three service Warrant Officers. Also not sure if this will be a E10 rank or created as E11 on the Defence HR system. No details yet on what the Insignia will look like or if the title will change to something like Warrant Officer of the Australian Defence Force (WO-ADF) to follow current trend or Senior Enlisted Advisor to the CDF (SEAC-A) Hawkeyebasil (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]