Size of the Austrian Airforce?

Massive

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me as to why the combat arm of the Austrian airforce is so small?

I have been hunting around the internet but unfortunately my googlefu has been defeated.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Massive
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Austria used to* have a policy of never deploying their Typhoons outside of Austrian territory, meaning that their main duty is QRA reacting to aircraft entering Austrian airspace therefore they don't really need a whole lot of aircraft to maintain those duties over a country the size of Austria.

* which clearly doesn't exist anymore. The first overseas deployment of Austrian Typhoons was to RAF Leuchars in Sept this year. However this was in the spirit of generating closer ties with RAF Typhoons which they have already with German and Italian Typhoons rather than any sort of expeditionary combat capability.

IIRC their base is they want any contact intercepted within 7 minutes and to have it out of Austrian airspace within 15.

Hope all that is accurate.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The (15) Typhoons aren't the only ones pulling CAP, they also have their (28) Saab 105Ö and - in particular in the western part of the country - their (12) PC-7 doing that.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
The (15) Typhoons aren't the only ones pulling CAP, they also have their (28) Saab 105Ö and - in particular in the western part of the country - their (12) PC-7 doing that.
Thanks Rob and Kato,

Is there a constitutional/historical reason the Austrian's only have 15 Typhoons supported by what are effectively high end training aircraft.

I know they had a long standing ban on missile technology until relatively recently but for a neutral I would have thought they would want a little more air support - they have a relatively large army.

All input appreciated.

Thanks again,

Massive
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Austria used to have a treaty limit on air force strength & weapons, which led to it relying on ground forces for defence. The air force wasn't allowed to be strong enough for much more than air policing. The limits went, but so did the external threat.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The limits went, but so did the external threat.

I think your last sentence sums it up pretty well. The political landscape, therefore the external threat, has changed dramatically since the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc and the Warsaw Pact.

A significant number of those countries are now NATO members and also EU members and the size of their respective armed forces and their air forces have also significantly reduced in size too.

Fifteen Typhoons may appear to be a smallish fleet on the surface, but I suppose it's all relative when you also look at the size of the air forces of their near neighbours such as the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, the various states of the former Yugoslavia and I don't really see that any of those countries getting into a conflict with Austria any time soon.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The air force wasn't allowed to be strong enough for much more than air policing.
The 1955 neutrality treaty didn't cap air force size, only armament. Austria wasn't allowed any missiles or rockets (as well as submarines, torpedo boats, sea mines, artillery with range above 30 km and the usual WMDs).

They therefore established first two, later three squadrons with gunfighters and kept a QRA ready beginning in 1966 - keeping scores of gunfighters would have simply been a waste of money, and the Czech/Hungarian/Yugoslav borders are short enough that the QRA could be at any point of them within about 10-15 minutes after an alarm. This was coupled with long-range radar stations that pull tight surveillance on the air space anywhere within about 20 minutes supersonic flight of Austria's borders.

The weapons restriction was unilaterally (!) declared invalid in August 1990, and subsequently Austria bought AIM-9P3 in 1994, as well as Mistral for GBAD around the same time. The switch officially added "Luftraumverteidigung" (Air Defense) to the Air Force's portfolio, previously the jet aircrafts' functionality was "Luftraumüberwachung" (Air Surveillance / Air Policing).
Since the signatory powers of the neutrality treaty did not speak up at the time Austria has since kept buying weapon systems that technically violate the treaty - which is still in power.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
My mistake. I thought it had a numbers restriction as well.

I'd say that under generally accepted principles the weapons limitation treaty is no longer in force. Parties to it have openly ignored it, selling Austria weapons in breach of it, & no other party has objected. That could, & no doubt would, be argued as constituting tacit agreement by all the parties to the cancellation of the treaty.

A bit like my theoretical obligation, written into the deeds of my house, to pay someone ground rent. Either the farmer who sold the land on which my house is built to a property developer in 1872, or the developer who laid out roadways & sold building plots to builders, reserved the right to an annual payment for each plot. But nobody has collected it for so many years that when I bought the house my lawyer said he was absolutely confident that I could ignore anyone who demanded the money. Such rights lapse eventually if not claimed.

The parties to the Austrian treaty have failed to claim their rights under it for long enough that an international court would say they've lapsed.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
selling Austria weapons in breach of it
Technically that was only France (Mistral). The Sidewinders were bought from Sweden, the PAL.2000 (Rbs-56) too, and the PAL.4000 (HOT) were bought from Germany. The M109A5 the US sold them in the 90s do not exceed the 30 km artillery limit.

Austria already violated the treaty well ahead of unilaterally cancelling it btw. The first case is generally held (*) as buying some 18 Czechoslovak M51 rocket launchers (in 1972), the second case was ordering PAL.2000 from Sweden with the treaty cancellation being published immediately before delivery of the missiles (order was one year earlier). A possible Soviet protest over the buying of those M51 was anticipated at the time but never came up.

(*) technically the buying of a small number of PAR.67 (M72 LAW) in 1967, iirc for evaluation, violated the treaty earlier on, while the PAR.70 (Miniman) bought from Sweden that went into full service instead three years later did not - since those were recoilless grenade launchers, not rocket launchers. The PAR.57 (which i think was the RL-100 Blindicide ?) was a similar case 10 years earlier - probably at the time evaluated to supplement/replace the US-provided PAR.A/B (M20 Bazooka).

There were also some other weapons trials in the 1960s and 70s that violated the treaty, but regarding these one can be lenient since these never got even an initial okay for procurement.

my lawyer said he was absolutely confident that I could ignore anyone who demanded the money.
Wouldn't be the case in Germany, you'd be up for any bills since buying or (currently) 1983, whichever came earlier. ;)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
There's no record of this charge having been collected for at least 50 years before I bought my house - & that was in 1988. Don't try to collect it, you're eventually held to have voluntarily relinquished it.

Here, people who allow access to their land voluntarily, for no charge (e.g. along a path through it which isn't a public right of way) have to assert their right, e.g. by blocking access occasionally (maybe one day a year), or posting conspicuous signs, to keep the right to close it.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
According to this: (beginning on page 225[pg 233 of pdf])
No. 2949. STATE TREATY' FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT
OF AN INDEPENDENT AND DEMOCRATIC AUSTRIA.
SIGNED AT VIENNA, ON 15 MAY 1955
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 217/v217.pdf

Military and Air Clauses begins on page 233 [pg 241 of pdf]

Weapons restrictions were under
Article 13: PROHIBITION OF SPECIAL WEAPONS (page 235 [pg 243 of pdf])
"1. Austria shall not possess, construct or experiment with-a) Any atomic
weapon, b) any other major weapon adaptable now or in the future to mass
destruction and defined as such by the appropriate organ of the United Nations,
c) any self-propelled or guided missile or torpedoes, or apparatus connected
with their discharge or control, d) sea mines, e) torpedoes capable of being manned,
f) submarines or other submersible craft, g) motor torpedo boats,
h) specialized types of assault craft, i) guns with a range of more than 30
kilometers, j) asphyxiating, vesicant or poisonous materials or biological substances
in quantities greater than, or of types other than, are required for legitimate
civil purposes, or any apparatus designed to produce, project or spread
such materials or substances for war purposes."


But all of this seems moot as this all would appear to have expired when Austria became a member of the UN on 14 December 1955:
Article 17: DURATION OF LIMITATIONS (page 239 [pg 247 of pdf])
"Each of the military and air clauses of the present Treaty shall remain in force
until modified in whole or in part by agreement between the Allied
and Associated Powers and Austria or, after Austria becomes a member of the
United Nations, by agreement between the Security Council and Austria."
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Austria does have an agreement with the UNSC. Austria made a public declaration that the treaty was no longer in force, & the UNSC did not object.

International law is clear. The agreement is cancelled. By not responding to Austria's declaration, the UNSC accepted it. The UNSC tacitly (& that's enough to fulfil the legal requirement) agreed with Austria's unilateral declaration.

Members (both permanent & temporary) of the UNSC have sold guided weapons to Austria, & "apparatus connected with their discharge or control", without any complaint from the UNSC as a whole, or from other members, thus reinforcing the agreement.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
In terms of the number of Typhoon's the order was for 18. However when government changed they nearly cancelled the order but with contract penalties I think it was cheaper to continue the order though reduce their purchase number.
 

Jonton

New Member
Considering the country's size, 15 Typhoons are quite sufficient in my opinion. These aircraft are not single engined F-16s or Mirage 2000s but big, tough twin engined combat aircraft able to cover the whole country in a matter of minutes. Added to this is the fact that Austria is surrounded by friendly states with Typhoons, F-18s, etc. A larger force is not necessary.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
But they didn't save a significant amount of money by cutting numbers. It was a political act, by a pacifist defence minister who opposes just about all weapons purchases. He chose to do alternative (civilian social) service rather than be called up to the army. When he couldn't get the contract cancelled, because of the penalties, he forced through the cut in numbers, to save face.
 

Toptob

Active Member
But they didn't save a significant amount of money by cutting numbers. It was a political act, by a pacifist defence minister who opposes just about all weapons purchases. He chose to do alternative (civilian social) service rather than be called up to the army. When he couldn't get the contract cancelled, because of the penalties, he forced through the cut in numbers, to save face.
Things like that really piss me off (sorry I'm so blunt). If I could I would change the constitution of my country (the NL) that any minister should have a background in the respective field in which they become minister. Look at the mindless spending cuts they put through our military because some stupid woman doesnt know s#$t about defense.
It's the same here some dirty pacifist gets to ruin a perfectly good defense procurement process just for the sake of some lame political leaning. People like that should be held responsible when shit hits the fan and there's not enough bombs for instance (think Denmark over Libya). AAARGHH makes me angry sometimes, just a little peeve ;)

In the meantime, ontopic: it's really funny to see how the treaty didn't really take into consideration the future. However in 1955 it couldn't been known how prevalent the missile would become in air combat, but it left the Austrian airforce as a lame duck. 20-20 hindsight though.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not just NL, a quote from the secretary of the Australian MOD went along the lines of "The previous governments defence cuts not only moved to goal posts, they cut them up and burnt them as fire wood"
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But they didn't save a significant amount of money by cutting numbers.
The flyaway cost of the Eurofighter for Austria was cut from 62.9 million to 58.8 million with the contract change, the cut in numbers was fully compensated.

The fact that Austria got relegated to Tranche I Eurofighters technically was just a correction of a previous "mistake" - the contract was signed in 2003 at a fixed price for Trance II aircraft. The UK managed to convince the other Eurofighter producing companies to vastly expand Trance II capability (and cost!) in 2004, which essentially would have resulted in Austria getting this expanded capability for free.

The Austrian economy received reciprocal deals worth 203% of the Eurofighter investment btw. And the money for the entire Eurofighter contract doesn't come from the military budget, but was taken out of the social budget (a rather highly questionable decision in my opinion). It's not exactly like they lost any money there. At all.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
A pacifist as minister of defence-priceless
Please stop posting one-liners. Have a look at the forum rules, except for a few situations such as thanking someone for information, it is generally understood that one-liner posts do not sufficiently contribute to the discussion and could be construed as simply attempts to inflate post count. So go and have a look: http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Thanks mate.
 
Top