Talk:Papua New Guinea Defence Force

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National / South Pacific / Cold War / Post-Cold War 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 articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force Melanesia: Papua New Guinea Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as High-importance).

I checked Janes.com today - they make no reference to the Attack class in their PNG navy entry. I guess they must have been decomissioned. Unless anyone objects I am going to treat them as such in the next edit.Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nomads are not listed on Janes either - are they still in service? Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the

Because I removed it when you added it along with a lot of nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the image does show RPIR soldiers using a weapon of the M-16 family, however I can find no evidence of that in the PNGDF arsenal. The list currently provided in this article is the most recent I could find on Janes World Armies (usually a fairly reliable source) which does not list the M-16. I do however suspect that the list in Janes is a litle sparse and maybe missing a few weapons - I recall a conversation a year ago with the mate serving in the PNGDF that they use quite a range of small arms (including the M-16). Regardless without an authorative source I agree that it probably shouldn't be added. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Jane's over the word of an IP vandal who has a long history of adding false claims to articles on Asian militaries any day. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, does Jane's confirm all the other weapons in that table? Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as the list currently stands (9mm FN pistol, 9mm Sterling, Steyr, FN FAL, MAG 58, F89, 81mm and 120mm). All these weapons are listed in Janes World Armies and Janes Infantry Weapons as being in service with PNGDF. Like I said no M-16, but I will see if I can track down a reference. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually to clarify the primary reference is Janes Infantry Weapons - which lists all those above. Janes World Armies is fairly sparse and only lists the mortars. Regardless the current list is as provided by Janes. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated rationale to include PNGDF article and restored image. Anotherclown (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've assessed this as a B-class. But please see Land Element section, paragraph 2, where it says, "and on often shown scant regard". This needs to be fixed. Since this is inside a quote, I leave it to the author to fix. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been updating info on the Attack-class PBs and trying to research what happened to them. Apart from

But that isn't why I'm here. During my investigations I've noticed something odd that needs confirming. It seems the Pacific PBs HMPNGS Tarangau (P01) and HMPNGS Basilisk (P04) are no longer called such, and have been renamed HMPNGS Rabaul (P01) and HMPNGS Moresby (P04) respectively. I can find no announcement of the changes, but they are referred as such in releases by the AustGov (2010) and ADF (mid-2008 with images of P04). This seems to have occurred in 2008, but it is difficult to get at because so much information on web pages and in the media seems to stem from Wikipedia info which I think may be wrong.

On what I think is a very related topic, around this time it seems that the PNGDF Base Lombrum on Manus Island has been renamed HMPNGS Tarangau (note that this base was called HMAS Tarangau prior to hand-over in 1974) and the PNGDF Base Lancron in Port Moresby has been renamed HMPNGS Basilisk (note that the RAN base in Port Moresby was called HMAS Basilisk on two occasions, although from my research the Lancron site was Australian Army Watercraft pre-1974). Again, there is no direct announcement that I can find, and references are a jumble. For example, this article from 2008 in the PNG Post-Courier refers to the base HMPNGS Basilisk (formerly Lancron) and so does this article in The National just 5 months ago, and I have no idea what to make of this.

You can see here the list of PNGDF vessels registered to conduct high seas boardings (and their photographs here) on the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission website. Note the date on the documents, mid 2008. The vessels registered are: Rabaul (P01), Dreger (P02), Seeadler (P03), and Moresby (P04).

And yet I can't find any reference to any names being changed (other than the "formerly Lancron" I mention above). It is maddening, and I'm about to pull hair out. The PNGDF website is unusually and probably award-winningly useless in its lack of information and depth (it basically consists of a homepage from which 11 pages link, two corporate messages and a 3 page, 53k PDF titled 2007-2011 Management Action Plan that is astonishing in its brevity!). It seems that the rest of the PNG government is not much more online.

I would like to note that the Dept of Treasury PNG Medium Term Development Plan 2011 lists the 2011-2015 deliverable as "rehabilitate existing 6 x maritime capabilities...2 x LCH; 4 x Patrol Boats", so I think we can safely relegate the Attack-class PBs now.

Can anyone help me with this, or suggest an angle of attack? 113727b (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 113727b. Just letting you know that I checked Janes World Navies online (through my work subscription), however it has not been updated since 2009 so it doesn't seem to shed any light on these issues. So unfortunately I can only add to your frustration! Hang in there, I'll see what else might be available through Janes tommorrow. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now checked Janes Fighting Ships online (subscription service) which confirms that there are only 4 patrol boats active, being No. 1 Rabaul (ex-Tarangau), No 2. Dreger, No. 3 Seeadler and No 4. Moresby (ex-Basilisk). Nothing on the changes to the base names though. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a recent visit to PNG only one of the CASAs is still serviceable, and none of the Aravias are serviceable. Didn't see a BO-105 or any Nomads. There was a Dornier 228 looking very decrepit. I was told a Huey was serviceable, however I doubt it. However Hevilift now have a contract to wet lease two Bell 212s to the PNGDF, see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.95.5 (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDrQ9ne5Pt4) film, at 2:25, a soldier can be seen carrying an Israeli made IMI Galil, should this be added too the equipment list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Papua New Guinea Defence Force's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Loop2018-07-08":

• From Ted Diro: "Australian ship named after Ted Diro". Loop. 2018-07-08. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
• From
  HMPNGS Ted Diro (P401)
  : Cedric Patjole (2018-07-08). "Australian ship named after Ted Diro". Loop. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]