Talk:Airfield Defence Guards

New RAAF SF unit
I've removed this para as it's uncited and seems to be speculation ("the government hinted"). The only reference I've seen on this, which is at, states that personnel from all parts of the RAAF can join the new No. 4 Squadron RAAF, and makes no reference to the ADG. If a source can be found for this stuff then it belongs in the 4 Sqn article. --Nick Dowling 11:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC) "In May 2007, the government hinted that a new RAAF unit would be made starting in March 2008 based on the Airfield Defence Guards. This new unit (to be the re-formed No. 4 Squadron) will be responsible for forward air control (FAC) and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC). Recently the RAAF was certified by the US CENTCOM that it is able to operate under US JTAC standards. These tasks will create a unit similar to the USAF Special Tactics teams and JTACs The role of No. 4 Sqn RAAF will be to provide FAC for Special Operations Command units (4RAR Commando and the Special Air Service Regiment). JTAC members of 4 Sqn will be required to complete basic commando training."

Selection requirements
Trainees are required to run 2.4km (with full pack and weapon) in under 10 minutes, a 10m rope climb, perform 10 chin ups (according to age), swim 1.5km in under 10 minutes and perform 40 sit ups. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. The current FINA 1500m freestyle world record is 14:34min. - Htra0497 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole para looked questionable, and I've moved it here. I don't think that it should be re-added without a citation. Given that ADGs are good-quality infantry but not special forces, it seems hard to believe that the selection proccess is so tough that it has a massive failure rate (if 75% of applicants fail the initial selection and 50% of candidates then go on to fail the combat survival course then only 12.5% actually get accepted into the ADG!). It's also hard to believe that the RAAF's pilot selection process and training is less compeditive than ADG training... --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Applying to become an ADG is incredibly competitive as there are very limited positions available every year. Airfield Defence Guard training is the toughest and most grueling the Air Force has to offer. Trainees are required to run 2.4km (with full pack and weapon) in under 10 minutes, a 10m rope climb, perform 10 chin ups (according to age), swim 1.5km in under 10 minutes and perform 40 sit ups. Trainees are required to live in the field for a period of three or four weeks during training, with only a small amount of sleep, food, shelter and rest. Currently the course boasts a 60-75% failure rate, which, other than the Army's 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and SASR is the highest failure rate in the ADF. All ADGs are require to attend the Combat Survival School (COMSURV) within one year of completing the basic course, which itself boasts a 50% failure rate.


 * The ADF Jobs website page on the process of becoming an ADG at confirms some of these details as being the conditions graduates from initial ADG training (not applicatants for this training) need to meet. It doesn't mention a high failure rate at any point, though it is noted that "students need to have a very high level of physical fitness before commencing training". In contrast, the page on becoming a commando at  uses much stronger wording about the difficulty of being selected (eg, "Service as a Commando in Australia's Special Forces is physically and mentally demanding and requires a high level of individual robustness, strength and endurance. Therefore, you must be medically and physically fit and psychologically suitable to undertake Special Forces selection and reinforcement training."). The ADG selection standards, while high, seem to be somewhat lower than those for the Special Forces Entry Test, so I don't see why the failure rate for applicants would be so high. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue
By the end of the Vietnam war, Airfield Defence Guards were some of the most respected airmen in the RAAF and had gained the respect of their rival the Australian Army Infantry.

I felt this had to be removed given the subjective nature of the statement. I haven't found any references to back this opinion up. Happy to be proven wrong! Stepat (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-Vietnam deployments
I've added a request for citations against the deployments to PNG, the Gulf War and Somalia as I've never seen any evidence of this. I am aware of all the other listed deployments and will work on finding references, however I'm a little sceptical about these three. Stepat (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Following further research and having received no responses here to date, I have removed references to these deployments. Stepat (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-published reference
I have added a self published reference (Walker, T. Graham) to this article as the relevant information contained in it (regarding plans to introduce Staghound armoured cars into the RAAF in the 1950s) is extremely rare. The actual book is lodged with the National Library of Australia in Canberra and contains information from participants directly involved in the project, along with supporting photographs. Stepat (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits; July,17 2008
I have reverted two recent edits, one of which relates to a personal view on individuals' claims to special forces status; the other relates to tasks and roles, and stated that patrolling tasks are only undertaken out to 5km from the perimeter fence of an airfield. This does not reflect the current content of the RAAF reruitment information used as a reference, nor is it factually correct; while nominally the RAAF may be responsible for ground defence in a patrol and surveillance zone nominally extending to 5km from the perimeter for planning purposes, this is a guide only. The assigned Area of Operations (AO) varies from operation to operation and ADGs have undertaken patrol tasks well beyond 5km from the 'perimeter fence.' Stepat (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mustering"
The term mustering is used prominently in the article and I think needs some explanation. I realise it is the description used by the RAAF and I am familiar with military usage of "muster", but "mustering" is unusual and I don't think I have seen it before, in spite of my many years spent reading Australian military history. I gather that the RAAF uses it in the sense in which army have administrative corps. Perhaps a link to muster_(military) would help, even though that is really only a stub. Grant |  Talk  16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepat (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to a definition of 'musterng', which I'll expand to a list of RAAF musterings & specialisations in the future.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Airfield Defence Guards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070919123720/http://www.defence.gov.au:80/opcatalyst/images/gallery/141103b/index.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/141103b/index.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airfield Defence Guards. 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/20070829191344/http://ada.asn.au/defender/Winter%202006/High%20Time%20for%20the%20High-Readiness%20Reserve%20%28Defender%2C%20Winter%202006%29.pdf to http://www.ada.asn.au/defender/Winter%202006/High%20Time%20for%20the%20High-Readiness%20Reserve%20%28Defender%2C%20Winter%202006%29.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian crime
Regarding this recent edit, you mentioned that you reverted because you were "unsure that this relates to the project". Can I assume that you took a few seconds to have at look at the Australian crime project and its scope prior to reverting? The project currently covers pages within Category:Crime in Australia.

So, in terms of coverage here, this page, Airfield Defence Guards, is included in the Template:Law enforcement in Australia, which is within Category: Law enforcement agencies of Australia, which is within Category: Law enforcement in Australia, which is within Category:Australian criminal law, which is within Category:Crime in Australia, which is within WikiProject Australian crime.

So, when we think of crime, there are clearly those that perpetrate it and clearly those that work to prevent it, and it is within the latter paradigm that the project's umbrella falls in this case. All of the other entities in Template:Law enforcement in Australia are currently within the crime project, except this one, pending discussion as a result of the recent edit. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * G'day, thanks for the response -- ultimately, I'm not an expert in the ADGs, but I personally wouldn't classify their main role as law enforcement. The Air Force Police and Air Force Security musterings are arguably a law enforcement like military police, potentially, but I wouldn't have thought that ADGs were (largely a static defensive infantry force -- although this comparison is also a bit of a stretch in some regards).. That said, now that the airfield defence squadrons have been renamed and reorganised and now include both ADGs and RAAF Security -- they are now security forces squadrons (e.g. No. 3 Security Forces Squadron RAAF), the situation is a bit more complex. I can live with the tag if you still feel it is warranted, but at first glance it seems a bit out of place to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to weigh in, I also don't think that the ADGs have any role in crime fighting. They're essentially an infantry combat force. As AR notes, this article doesn't reflect the way the RAAF has reorganised its security forces, where its personnel who do have a police role have been integrated with the ADGs. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello all. No, I agree that their main role isn't law enforcement/crime fighting the same way as the regular police (i.e. a narrow definition of the word "crime"), but it seems they do still have a general "law enforcement" role in Australia as you mention. Anyway, I am not an expert on how accurately this page represents the current state and role of the group. If editors here feel strongly that the Law enforcement in Australia tag is clearly misplaced, and that the group has no such role, then the solution is to simply delete this page from the law enforcement template (although other military agencies of law enforcement such as Australian Defence Force Investigative Service, Joint Military Police Unit (Australia) and Royal Australian Corps of Military Police are still listed there). Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)