Talk:Irish Air Corps

Requested move 28 August 2020

Please see Talk:Irish_Naval_Service#Requested_move_28_August_2020. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

PC-12

Meanwhile there are 4 PC-12NG in service: 1 in standard configuration as the current link shows, 3 modified Spectre https://flyinginireland.com/2020/09/irish-air-corps-new-pc-12s-arrive-in-baldonnel/ Can anybody update the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.131.73.206 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Air Corps history sources

Given that Irish military aviation history is a pretty niche topic even in Ireland, there are not many sources available online about exactly what happened when in terms of when it became the National Army Air Corps, and what role it had in the Irish Civil War. The book Wings Over Ireland (1996) by Donald MacCarron, and Military Aviation in Ireland, 1921-45 (2010) by Michael O'Malley are the only dedicated history books I could find. This would make sense, too, since there is just one definitive history of the Irish Naval Service.

I do have a copy of Wings Over Ireland but it is far away in storage, and it is a costly book to replace. I will likely not get to it until 2026, but having said that, I do know that book specifies what role the Air Corps had in the Civil War, and may also specify when the Air Corps was separated from the Army.

If anyone else has a copy of either book they can more readily reference, or if anyone else knows of another good source on this, please feel free to mention it. AC9016 (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Removed nonsense about Fouga 'Interceptors'

Repeating something doesn't make it true - The Fouga CM.170-2 cannot be considered an interceptor and its retirement did not represent the loss of an intercept capability, nor was the Vampire T.55. Interestingly, both had roles in countering light aircraft and helicopter threats to visiting VIPs. This is a role which the PC-9s continue to fill (and may, in fact, be more suited to than the Vampire and Fouga). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12901-63 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That's all very well. But the change you made wasn't supported by the sources. Including those you removed. The Aerotime article ("Irish Air Corps: The air force without any fighter jets" (2025)) does refer to the withdrawal of the Magisters, "in early 1999", as "leaving the Air Corps without a single combat jet". On the other hand, the text you replaced this with (about Supermarine Seafires in the 1950s) isn't supported by the sources. (Which don't refer to the Seafires as having provided "an air intercept capability"; Or the 1950s as the last time Ireland had "fighter aircraft in its inventory"). If you have sources to support the changes you are trying to make (about the "Supermarine Seafires being the last combat aircraft offering an air intercept capability in the 1950s"?), then please do add them. But, ideally, we wouldn't make changes without references (and certainly when counter to the sources that are there.) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources didn't support the reality - the Fouga is a basic jet trainer with a 300mph top speed. Repeating the nonsense asserted in the 'source' is not a valid approach at all.

The reality is that the British declined to supply Meteors to replace the Seafires in 1952, suggesting there was no military need and instead proposed the intercept agreement. The last Seafire retired in 1954. You won't find sources for this and the person who told me this is dead about ten years.

These historical details aren't that important; what is obvious and relevant is that the intercept agreement came into effect as the Seafires were retiring and years before the first Fouga prototype even flew.

Journalists make stuff up. They go to reading and writing school and hope someday to big writers but very few of them know this kind of stuff. 'Fougas as interceptors' is made up.

I'll let you reply here but I fully intend restoring my edit. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "The sources didn't support the reality". The current text simply reads As the Air Corps has not maintained combat jet aircraft in its inventory since the 1990s,[1] Britain's Royal Air Force reportedly sent fighter jets to intercept and escort a number of Russian bombers out of Ireland's airspace in the early 2020s.[2][3]. It makes no mention of the "Fougas as interceptors" (or Meteors or Seafires or anything else).
• "Journalists make stuff up". The main sources used to support the above text include the Aerotime (Andy Murray) and Politico (Eoin Drea) sources. Murray states "two Magisters remained in service, and in early 1999, these final two were withdrawn, leaving the Air Corps without a single combat jet". Supporting the "Ireland has not maintained combat jet aircraft since the 1990s" text. And Drea states "Ireland has no combat jets, and it's the only country in Europe that can't monitor its own airspace" and that it "effectively cedes control over Irish air space to the Royal Air Force". Together with the RTÉ source, this broadly supports the rest of the simple statement. There is no mention of "interceptors" in the text. And neither source seems to describe the "Fougas as interceptors". What, in your view, are Murray and Drea "making up"? (FWIW and per WP:POLITICO, this source is generally considered reliable...)
• "the person who told me this is dead about ten years". Condolences. But text needs to be based on reliable/published sources. A deceased source (unpublished?) isn't verifiable by others.
• "I fully intend restoring my edit". Please don't do so without providing alternative/reliable sources. Especially if you're going to describe the Seafires as "interceptors". Or link them to modern Russian incursions. As, with every respect, if referring to the Fougas as "interceptors" is "nonsense", then it is equally fantastical to suggest that the Supermarine Seafire represent/represented an "air intercept capability" that, if retained, could've "escort[ed] a number of Russian bombers out of Ireland's airspace in the early 2020s". Nor is this supported by the sources. (No sources refer to the Seafires at all. As intreceptors. Or otherwise. Or associate them with a modern/21st century air-defence capability. Referring to these aircraft, in a modern air defence context, seems bizarre. "Nonsense" to use your own term. And, from what I can tell, is not support by any of the sources.)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"this source is generally considered reliable"

If they don't know the subject, they're not reliable.

RTE or Politico, they're journalists and like I said, they go to journalist school to learn reading writing and a bit of law. Specialty journalism is littered with their suburban consumer misunderstanding of technical and engineering issues. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I wish you would engage your brain.

The article puts the withdrawal of the Fougas in the context of the RAF policing Irish airspace. Putting it thus is intentionally utterly misleading.

The 'main sources' do not support the absolutely preposterous assertion that the Fouga fulfilled an interceptor role in the Irish Air Corps. Any such conclusion is misconceived. Did the BAe 125, Gulfstream or current Falcon fulfill the interceptor role - they're all jets. One jet does not an interceptor make. Perhaps you should speak about the subject to someone in the Defence Forces CoS office - as I have. They can tell you what roles they assigned to the Fouga and the Air Corps in general. You might know then that the Fouga's twin 7,5mm machine guns had to fire 7,62 nato rounds and frequently jammed. It's rate of climb was less than that of the PC-9s. It's endurance was less than an hour if the ferry tanks were not fitted - a day's work and severely limiting on the aircraft's flight envelope.

The assertion implied in the context of RAF interceptions is misleading. It implies some new situation has arisen when in fact the Air Corps withdrew from policing Irish airspace long, long ago.

~2026-13487-63 (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

1. "engage your brain". Have quick look at etiquette guidelines. And consider whether the above is in keeping with that guideline.
2. "Support that claim that the Fouga fulfilled an operational interceptor role". What claim? I have not stated that the "Fouga fulfilled an operational interceptor role". Nor does the current revision of the article?
3. "fully intend restoring my edit. It is still unclear to me what change you are proposing to make or restore. And what sources you are relying upon for that change. (As noted, the changes you made prior, including the statement that "Since the retirement of the Supermarine Seafire in the early Fifties, Ireland has lacked an air intercept capability", are unsupported. None of the sources appear to refer to the Seafire as offering an "air intercept capability".) What text change are you planning on making/restoring?

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

My edit basically swapped the Seafire for the Fouga as the last combat aircraft of the Irish Air Corps. Its withdrawal was coincident the the Interception agreement with the British government. Factually, it's all there in the rest of the text. Mention of the Fouga in that context is disingenuous and based on commentary that was designed to provoke a degree of outrage. Replacing the Fouga with the Seafire is much more in keeping with the real context of RAF interceptions - the reluctance to supply Meteors to non-NATO Ireland in the early Cold War. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. In terms of:

• the sources being "designed to provoke a degree of outrage", I clearly don't see what you see. While the Aerotime (Murray/1995) mentions the retirement of the Fouga ("in early 1999, these final two [Fougas] were withdrawn, leaving the Air Corps without a single combat jet") in an article which also discusses the RAF agreement, it doesn't seem to do so in a sensationalist or "outrageous" way.
• "Replacing [mention of] the Fouga with the Seafire [..as it would be..] much more in keeping with the real context of RAF interceptions", I am still stuck on the fact that none of the sources support this. As none of the sources refer to the Seafires in this context. At all.

Again, if you want to (a) explain what text change you are actually proposing to make, and (b) what sources you are relying upon for that change, then happy to have the discussion. But, otherwise, I don't understand what is being proposed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

My source is this article itself.

The Seafires were used by the air corps and now they are not - mentioned in the article - simples. The edit restates this in a context that is relevant timewise to the RAF interception agreement - the retirement of one is closely aligned with the other. The Seafire was a combat aircraft - in a way that the Fouga clearly was not - the article describes them as "jet trainers" (and erroneously describes them as all supplied by the French air force - only a few of them were; the rest being Belgian and Austrian).

The unmentioned historical background to this is the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement of 1938 which, amongst other things, included an arms supply agreement. This essentially required Ireland to buy British arms in most circumstances and obliged the British to supply them. DeValera declined an offer of free Curtiss P-37 fighters from Roosevelt prior to WW2 because of this treaty and bought Gladiators, only a third of which were supplied - in breach of the treaty. Ireland wanted Spitfire Mk.9s in 1947 but the British refused, supplying the Seafires instead. Ireland then requested Meteors and got as far as a demonstration in Dublin the late 40s. As a sweetener for the ultimate refusal to supply jet fighters to Ireland, the interception agreement was offered - a much cheaper option.

I'm not trying to add this in an edit. It's a context for an edit supported by the text of the existing article. There is clearly an agenda in the defence press to portray Ireland as hiding in the skirts of NATO when in fact the historical context of Ireland abandoning policing its airspace shows a very different picture. The current Fouga wording is irrelevant and disingenuous.

Your inability to question the motivation of journalists in this day and age is why you can't see the intent to conjure up outrage from a seventy year old Agreement. It's not politically acceptable and we were all hoodwinked! The world is going to end! Click back later for more panic! The context of this agreement is being subverted to suit modern journalistic economics.

Stop hanging up on irrelevant quotes and references and be more critical of them. Somebody has externally added up two and two and pretended to have gotten five. Just because it's external doesn't mean it's factually relevant - even if it dances carefully with snippets of fact.

BTW, there are a lot of errors in the article as a whole - not just the origin of the Fougas. Nearly all of the have references. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know how to engage with any of that. As it doesn't refer to any sources. And doesn't propose any specific changes. It is, with respect, an essay. Guliolopez (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It is a reply, arising from a roll-back of an edit.

If you can read, the reference for the edit is this article.

If you don't like it, you can start an edit war.

As for the essay, I thought you might like to understand what you are being an ass about. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "what you are being an ass about". As before, please read WP:EQ.
• "If you don't like it, you can start an edit war". I'm not the one warring.
• "the reference for the edit is this article". If by "the edit" you mean this edit, then (a) this isn't reflective of the rest of the body (which doesn't refer to the retirement of the Seafires or date anywhere) and (b) isn't how Wikipedia works (Changes, especially queried/questionable ones, are supposed to be sourced to verifiable sources. Not "[other parts of] this article").

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

What is your problem with the truth?

The date of 1955 is in List_of_aircraft_of_the_Irish_Air_Corps - it's wrong. The actual retirement date of the last seven operational Seafires is 19/07/1954.

The Fougas were not combat aircraft - so your version is plain wrong. Don't bother quoting irrelevant texts that seem to suggest that.

There are that many fully referenced inaccuracies in this article that your standpoint is a joke. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "What is your problem with the truth?". You need to read WP:BUTITSTRUE. This insistence on referring to the Seafires (in the context of an air intercept/fighter capability or the RAF agreement) is baffling. As it is supported by nothing at all. Removing mention of the Fougas (cited) and replacing it with mention of the Seafires (entirely uncited) is not an improvement.
• "Fougas were not combat aircraft". The Fougas were attached to the No. 1 Light Strike Squadron and routinely fitted with rocket pods as part of a ground attack role. Per various sources. And images. They may not have "seen" combat. But they were assigned to a ground attack squadron and combat/combat-training roles. Your insistence on ignoring all references (and suggestion that they all contain "inaccuracies" or have all been written by people who "make stuff up") is inexplicable. Not helped by the suggestion that "your" sources (including unnamed sources in the "Defence Forces CoS office" and "the person who told me this [who] is dead about ten years") are somehow superior and authoritative - while also being entirely unverifiable.
• "The date of 1955 is in List_of_aircraft_of_the_Irish_Air_Corps - it's wrong". What are you on about? The current revision of the "list" article doesn't state 1955. It states 1954. Because, seemingly, you changed it. Without a ref or explanation I note. And, even if the 1954 date was cited, what would it have to do with anything? How is the date relevant to the crux of the statement you added - that the Seafires were the last fighter/intercept aircraft and somehow connected to the 1952 RAF agreement? Which, despite being readded multiple times now, is not supported by a single verifiable source.

I'm done with this now. Whatever about removing the (cited) text about the Fougas being Ireland's last combat jet aircraft, replacing this with (entirely uncited) text referring to the Seafires as "Ireland's last fighter aircraft", and associating this/them with the 1952 RAF agreement, is completely unsupported. It just doesn't track. Guliolopez (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

PS. I've since restored the 1955 date to the "list of aircraft" title. As multiple sources refer to 1955. When no. 150 was seemingly retired. And no sources, that I can find, refer to 1954. (Also, FWIW, the Air Corps Museum Collection includes records of weekly inspection, for VS 506 Seafire LF.3 No.150, up to March 1955.) Guliolopez (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

By your logic, 90% of this article should be removed as unrefrenced.

Re: mulltiple sources for 1955 - did it ever occur to you that multiple 'sources' can just be repeating the same original 'source' and the same original unsourced mistake? Most published 'histories' of the IAC are repetitions of previously stated or mis-stated utterances of a couple of enthusiasts (including Tony Kearns) in a handful of magazine articles in the Sixties and Seventies.

Maintenance of log books after an aircraft's withdrawal from service does not equate to the aircraft remaining in service. The date of the transfer of the logbooks to archives is extremely unlikely to be the date of the withdrawal from actual service.

I didn't link the 1952 RAF agreement to the withdrawal of the Seafire in the article anymore than the withdrawal of the Fouga had already been linked (which is also completely unsupported). I made the link only here in the discussion.

Anyway, your new wording is less annoying. In retrospect, it was the inappropriate and unsupported association of Fouga with the 1952 agreement that most irked me. ~2026-16069-32 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Insignia Illustration

The three colour whirligig illustration is wrong in geometry. Its construction should be based on three semi circles 120º apart. Colours also look wrong but that's in the context of computer screens. ~2026-13487-63 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)