Counter-UAS: Austria's National Council unanimously backs national drone protection strategy

On Thursday, Austria's National Council (Nationalrat) voted unanimously to draw up and implement a national drone protection strategy. The reason is the growing threat drones pose to critical infrastructure and internal security – and with it the question of counter-UAS. The decision was based on a corresponding motion for a resolution tabled by the Greens.

All parliamentary groups behind the motion

Referring to the drone incidents across Europe in recent months, State Secretary Jörg Leichtfried spoke of “comprehensive and complex threats”. That Austria would also be affected was “only a question of time”. Drones were being used in hybrid attacks to destabilise states and spread uncertainty. According to Leichtfried, they were not an abstract danger but had a very concrete impact on social life. This had to be countered with a whole-of-government approach.

Volker Reifenberger (FPÖ) pointed to the “fast-moving” development of drones seen in Ukraine. There, the gap between the use of a new technology and a suitable countermeasure was usually three months – at odds with the rather lengthy procurement procedures. Different types of drones also required different forms of defence, Reifenberger stressed; in this area the Austrian Armed Forces (Bundesheer) were still “in their infancy”.

For counter-drone defence, for example, the technology of the European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) was “completely unsuitable”. By contrast, he named the procurement of the Skyranger air defence system as one sensible step. Together with his parliamentary colleague Michael Schilchegger, Reifenberger urged that the responsibilities of the defence and interior ministries on this issue be clarified. He called it a “slip” that the motion came “of all people” from the Greens – in their next motions they would “once again be talking up EU and NATO programmes”.

Ernst Gödl (ÖVP) saw the war in Ukraine as a “turning point” in the use of drones: there, for the first time, they were being used en masse and were redefining battlefields. Because drones were so cheap, they could be used not only by states but also by terrorist organisations or individual actors. Measures had already been taken, such as a drone control centre at Austro Control. According to Gödl, however, a comprehensive strategy was now needed. It had to include a threat analysis system, the strengthening of critical infrastructure, better legal frameworks and a common air picture.

Counter-UAS: Europe lagging behind

Friedrich Ofenauer (ÖVP) also stated that counter-drone defence required standardised, faster and legally sound procedures. In addition, investment was already going into a dedicated “drone fleet”; over 300 units had recently been procured. Margreth Falkner (ÖVP) added that the Resilience of Critical Entities Act (Resilienz kritischer Einrichtungen-Gesetz, RKEG) passed in September had also been an important step. Manfred Hofinger (ÖVP) addressed the various technical options for counter-drone defence.

Europe had not yet recognised the consequences of “complex threat situations” arising from the increasing use of drones and was “lagging” technologically “behind” in countering them, according to the diagnosis of SPÖ MP Robert Laimer. With “mass beats technology”, he pointed to the impact of cheap drone production. What was needed now was a whole-of-government solution with clear responsibilities, modern operational capability and European cooperation, Laimer said. Investment was needed in technology, personnel and legislation. Sabine Schatz (SPÖ) agreed: “New threats need new answers”. The Council of Ministers had already adopted a cross-ministry counter-drone strategy at the end of October.

Christoph Pramhofer (NEOS) regarded the increasing drone incidents throughout Europe as a consequence of hybrid war, which also had to be recognised as such. He likewise highlighted the danger posed by the cheap production and versatile uses of drones, and stressed that Europe had to cooperate on defence against them.

The sponsor of the motion, Agnes Sirkka Prammer (Greens), was pleased that it had been adopted unanimously. However, she pointed out that the drone protection strategy was only a plan; Austria had to “take action”. The strategy should therefore be completed as quickly as possible, because “the other side is already further ahead than we are”, Prammer said. Her parliamentary colleague Werner Kogler also emphasised the need for a clear division of competences between the ministries.