AEP-94 skin penetration assessment for non-lethal projectiles

What it is

AEP-94 is a NATO Allied Engineering Publication that defines a laboratory assessment method for judging the risk that a non-lethal kinetic-energy projectile penetrates human skin (clause 1.1). It does this by testing against a surrogate material that stands in for skin rather than against people, and it standardises how the outcome of that test is recorded so results from different laboratories and nations can be compared.

The publication is not itself something a company signs up to. It is covered by STANREC 4744, a NATO recommendation rather than a ratified agreement: nations are invited to use this method, not committed to it by ratification. A programme, a contract or a National Authority is what actually puts AEP-94 in front of a test facility.

Who runs the assessment

The document addresses whoever carries out the test, not a manufacturer's management system. A test facility is expected to provide the conditions the method requires (clause 2.3.1). Where the original weapon cannot be used and a substitute launcher stands in for it, a National Authority has to confirm the substitute produces impact conditions equivalent to the original system (clause 2.3.2) - a check the document places with a national authority, not with the test facility itself.

What the assessment produces

AEP-94 defines what counts as a penetration for the purposes of the test (clause 2.1.2), and a projectile is judged not to cause penetration at the distance tested only if the test sequence records none (clause 2.2.1). It does not certify a projectile, a manufacturer or an organisation: it produces test results, and how those results feed a wider qualification or acceptance decision is a matter for the programme or authority that asked for the test, not for AEP-94 itself.

What has to be recorded

The publication expects a defined, per-shot record for every test, not whatever a facility happens to keep. Observations run from target identification, shooting distance and the date of testing through to weapon and projectile details, and for each shot the impact location, whether the shot was fair, the projectile velocity, and the penetration result, entered on a Test Data Sheet, alongside a reference to the calibration results for the surrogate used (clause 2.5.7). This evidentiary detail is the part of AEP-94 most relevant to a compliance function: proving a test happened as described is a documentation problem, separate from the ballistic work itself.

What the document does not cover

AEP-94 sets out no certification, audit or accreditation scheme, and names none for a reader to seek out. It does not say when in a procurement or development programme the assessment has to be run, only how to run it once it is called for. Its own Annex B revision history records that this edition brought AEP-94's structure and phrasing into line with AEP-103 and added a gelatine-preparation annex, without stating what earlier edition it replaces. AEP-94's reference list also cites STANAG 2920 on the classification of personal armour as background reading rather than a binding requirement.

Standards it references

• STANAG 2920Background
• AEP-103Background