Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AOP-07
A nation's National Authority assessing an explosive material for Qualification under STANAG 4170, and the designer, manufacturer or importer that requests it
AOP-07 sets NATO's shared data requirements and tests for qualifying an explosive material for military use, and records how each participating nation runs its own qualification procedure under STANAG 4170.
AOP-07 is NATO's manual of data requirements and tests for qualifying explosive materials for military use. It supplements STANAG 4170, the ratified agreement setting out the qualification methodology and principles that participating nations agree to use; AOP-07 is the detail underneath it, adding "the specific requirements, techniques, and tests used by the participating nations to implement the STANAG". NATO's Letter of Promulgation is explicit that the manual "contains only factual information" and that changes to it "are not subject to the national ratification procedures" the way STANAG 4170 itself is: they are simply promulgated to the nations concerned on receipt. This is Edition 2, promulgated in June 2003. Chapters 1 to 9 are maintained by AC/310 Subgroup 1 (Explosive Materials), operating "under the aegis of the Conference of National Armament Directors (CNAD)", which since 1997 has also admitted non-aligned Partnership for Peace nations who wish to take part; the United States is the custodian nation responsible for publishing approved revisions and adding new national contributions to Chapter 10 as they arrive.
Chapters 5 to 7 set the framework every National Authority works within. Chapter 5 fixes how qualification data are recorded and issued: each explosive gets a formal Qualification report, whose content should generally follow Tables 1 to 3 of STANAG 4170 and let other participating countries accept the explosive "with minimal or no additional testing", and a formal Qualification Certificate issued by the National Authority under Annex B of STANAG 4170. A data sheet in the AOP-26 format is also prepared for every explosive a NATO country qualifies and forwarded to the custodian nation for the NATO Catalogue of Explosives. Chapter 7 then sets the data requirements common to each material class - primary explosives, booster explosives, high explosives, solid gun and rocket propellants, liquid propellants, and pyrotechnic compositions - and every participating nation accepts these as a minimum, though a nation may add its own tests and pass-fail criteria in its own Chapter 10 section.
Chapter 8 sets protocols for tracking whether an explosive's properties change over time, beginning early in qualification testing and continuing until there is reasonable assurance no unanticipated aging problem exists; a National Authority may still grant Qualification before that study is complete. Qualification under this manual and STANAG 4170 is a judgement about the material itself, and the document is explicit that it "does not imply Final (or Type) Qualification for use in a specific hardware application". That later step, covered in Chapter 9, ties approval to a specific munition or item of hardware, is assessed against STANAG 4297 and AOP-15, and is "generally the final approval level" before an explosive can be used operationally by the military forces.
The bulk of AOP-07 is Chapter 10, where each participating nation sets out its own qualification procedure, its own National Authority, and its own catalogue of test information sheets. Several nations - among them Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States - describe the whole process end to end: who submits a request, what data is required, who reviews it, and what gets issued. Others contribute no more than a heading marked "to be provided".
The general shape recurs across most of the fuller sections: a written request reaches the National Authority, commonly from the explosive's designer, though "the request could come from the manufacturer of the explosive, or even from the munition or munition-component designer" in several national procedures. The National Authority initiates or delegates testing, assesses the result against comparable materials with a proven safety record, and reaches a qualification status of qualified, not qualified, or qualified with restrictions, followed by a formal Qualification report and Certificate. What differs by nation is how that authority is organised and how far it looks outside its own borders. France and Italy each describe an explicit "recognition of the Qualification" route: where a foreign National Authority has already qualified an explosive under STANAG 4170, the national authority can recognise that qualification from the foreign certificate (and report, if needed) rather than repeat the whole procedure, though it commonly still asks for supporting data. Denmark and the Netherlands, by contrast, develop no new military explosives domestically; they procure explosives already built into a munition or weapon system, so approval of the explosive is folded into approval of that system's specification rather than run as a separate national qualification. Switzerland, a Partnership for Peace nation that has not ratified STANAG 4170, treats a STANAG cited in its own section as "pure literature reference" that "does not imply the acceptance of this STANAG without any restrictions", while still receiving and assessing qualification data from other nations. The United States has no single National Qualification Authority at all: each Service - Army, Navy including the Marine Corps, and Air Force - qualifies explosives separately for its own use, coordinated by a DoD authority that "does not Qualify explosive materials or issue qualification documents", against MIL-STD-1751A, described as "the U.S. implementing document for STANAG 4170".
AOP-07 creates no certification, for an explosive or for a company. Qualification, the Qualification report and the Qualification Certificate are all issued by a nation's National Authority to the explosive material itself, following the authority's own review of the test data, and NATO administers no accreditation or certification scheme behind any of them. It is a national government assessment of a material, not an audit of an organisation, so there is nothing in AOP-07 for a supplier to be certified against.
NATO's Standardization Document Database is the authoritative source for AOP-07. NATO's documents are free of charge; we credit NATO for the catalogue and neither sell nor host a copy ourselves.
The work AOP-07 describes - a written qualification request, the test data behind each material-class requirement, an aging record, and the technical specification that follows a successful qualification - happens in laboratory and engineering work decided by a National Authority, not in software. Assembling and holding that evidence trail is a document-control problem: the request and its supporting data, the qualification report and certificate once issued, and, where several parties ratify a technical specification, a record of who signed off on what.
ComplyTrain gives a programme team a controlled place to hold that trail: the qualification request and its correspondence with the National Authority, the test records and aging data behind each material-class requirement, and the ratified technical specification and its revisions. That is the same document-control and audit-trail discipline ComplyTrain supports for any technical standard's evidence, not a mapping to AOP-07's specific material-class requirements.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not run a qualification test, assess an explosive's safety and suitability, or decide whether a material is qualified, not qualified, or qualified with restrictions. Those judgements belong to the National Authority alone. Which of AOP-07's requirements a given programme faces, and which nation's procedure governs it, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us. See what else sits alongside AOP-07 in the standards explorer, and talk to us about the documentation trail behind an explosive material qualification.
Tell us how you need to work with AOP-07 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
AOP-07 does not bind on its own account: NATO's Letter of Promulgation states it "contains only factual information" and that changes to it are not subject to national ratification. It supplements STANAG 4170, the agreement nations actually ratify, so whether AOP-07's specific data requirements apply to a given qualification depends on that nation's own implementation of STANAG 4170, not on AOP-07 in isolation.
No. Qualification, the Qualification report and the Qualification Certificate are issued by a nation's National Authority to the explosive material itself, not to a company or its management system. NATO administers no accreditation scheme behind any of them, so there is nothing in AOP-07 for a supplier to be certified against.
Qualification, under Chapters 5 to 8, is an assessment of the explosive material itself. It "does not imply Final (or Type) Qualification for use in a specific hardware application" - that later step, covered in Chapter 9 and assessed against STANAG 4297 and AOP-15, ties approval to a particular munition and is "generally the final approval level" before operational use.
It varies by nation. France and Italy both describe an explicit "recognition of the Qualification" route, accepting a foreign National Authority's certificate (and report, if needed) rather than repeating the whole procedure, though each commonly asks for supporting data as well. Romania, Switzerland and the United Kingdom say their National Authority can receive and assess test data from other nations, the United Kingdom for munitions purchased overseas.
Denmark and the Netherlands both state they develop no new military explosives domestically. Each procures explosives already built into a munition or weapon system from elsewhere, so the explosive's approval is folded into approval of that system's specification rather than run as a standalone national qualification under AOP-07.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.