Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AOP-31
National Authorities deciding whether a munition counts as new demolition materiel, and the design and engineering teams developing demolition systems for NATO or Partner Member Forces
AOP-31 sets NATO's design principles and safety criteria for new demolition materiel, applied under STANAG 2818 and assessed through analysis and testing under AOP-32, not through any certification scheme.
AOP-31 is the NATO Allied Ordnance Publication that sets the design principles and safety criteria a demolition materiel design has to meet before it is accepted into NATO or Partner Member Forces service. It is one half of a pair: AOP-31 states the principles, and its companion, AOP-32, sets out how a design is actually assessed and tested against them. Given how sensitive the subject matter is, this page stays at that level throughout: what the publication is for, who it addresses, what kind of requirement it sets, and how it reaches an organisation, rather than describing what any individual requirement says.
STANAG 2818 is the NATO agreement that gives both AOP-31 and AOP-32 their force. As the document puts it, "the design principles and criteria for safety and suitability for service laid down in this AOP shall be applied to all new demolition materiel" as required by STANAG 2818. It is STANAG 2818's own definition of "new demolition materiel" that a nation's formally designated National Authority applies to decide when that obligation starts, and it is the National Authority, not AOP-31 itself, that makes the call. For an organisation designing or developing demolition materiel, the practical trigger is a national requirement or a contract that invokes AOP-31 and AOP-32; the document also says in general terms that the design and development process should follow AQAP-110 or an equivalent national document, which is something to plan for at the design stage rather than add afterwards.
AOP-31 is organised around a short set of clauses followed by two annexes, and names its own subject matter clause by clause: purpose and scope, terminology (drawn from AAP-6 and AOP-38), application, other permitted uses, and restrictions, followed by sections on the subject materiel, its function and performance requirements, safety, the service environment, and a pointer to the standard requirements in Annex B. Annex A lists the reference documents behind each of those sections, and Annex B sets out numbered requirements, each marked mandatory ("shall") or recommended ("should"), grouped under six headings: general requirements; demolition stores and accessories; firing systems; fuzes and fuzing systems; ancillary demolition equipment; and environmental aspects.
This page names those headings and does not go further. What any individual requirement in Annex B actually specifies, and how a demolition system, its firing arrangement or its charges are built, initiated or composed, is exactly the level of detail this page is written to stay clear of.
Two things the document states directly matter to anyone planning around AOP-31. First, a modification made to a demolition system to improve its reliability or performance must not affect its safety. Second, and stated more than once, meeting AOP-31 does not by itself guarantee that a design is safe and reliable under every condition: the document is explicit that its principles "do not eliminate the need for a full design safety assessment of demolition materiel prior to its acceptance into service", so the fuller hazard, reliability and environmental analyses it points to, largely through AOP-15, still have to be carried out. AOP-31 also names three categories of outcome, classed at the most severe hazard level, that a safety case has to weigh: unintended functioning of a store during storage, transport, maintenance, handling or installation; delayed functioning of a charge during dismantling; and serious unwanted secondary effects of an intended function.
The environmental conditions a design has to withstand are set with reference to AOP-15 and AECTP-100, and the accidental but credible threats it has to survive draw on STANAG 4439 and AOP-39, NATO's insensitive munitions policy and guidance. Neither the specific environmental figures nor the threat criteria themselves are reproduced here; they live in Annex B.
AOP-31 addresses the National Authority that decides whether a munition is "new" demolition materiel, and the organisations that design and develop demolition materiel for NATO or Partner Member Forces. It binds through STANAG 2818 rather than by existing on its own: a nation takes on STANAG 2818, its National Authority decides when a design counts as new, and for a supplier the obligation usually arrives as a national specification or a contract clause that names AOP-31 and AOP-32.
AOP-31 describes no certification scheme. Instead, a National Authority decides whether a given munition counts as new demolition materiel, under STANAG 2818's own definition, and that decision is what brings AOP-31's requirements into play. Meeting them is then demonstrated by analysis validated by testing, carried out under AOP-32's assessment and testing procedures, ahead of the design being accepted into service, not by an accredited body auditing a supplier. No accredited certification body, notified body or periodic re-certification cycle appears anywhere in the text.
AOP-31 is an operational and technical standard, and one that sits with the design office rather than a supplier's quality department: the actual work, design analysis, hazard and reliability assessment, and the testing carried out under AOP-32, happens in engineering and test, not in software. ComplyTrain's part is the documentation and evidence trail around that work: the record of when a National Authority decided a design counted as new demolition materiel and why, the internal procedure that routes a design change back through a safety re-assessment before it ships, given AOP-31's own rule that a reliability or performance change must not affect safety, the training record for engineering staff who need to know AOP-31 and AOP-32 apply, and the audit trail tying a design's AOP-32 evidence package to the requirements it was assessed against.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not carry out the design work, run the hazard, reliability or environmental analyses, or perform AOP-32's assessment and testing, and it does not decide whether a munition counts as new demolition materiel. Which of this a given programme actually has to meet is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside AOP-31, STANAG 2818 and AOP-32, and we are glad to talk through what a specific tasking or contract is asking for.
Tell us how you need to work with AOP-31 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.
It binds through STANAG 2818, the NATO agreement that covers AOP-31 and AOP-32. A nation's National Authority decides when a given demolition materiel design counts as "new" under STANAG 2818's definition, and that decision is what brings AOP-31 into play; for an organisation, it typically arrives as a national requirement or a contract clause.
AOP-31 states the design principles and safety criteria for demolition materiel. AOP-32 is the companion document that sets out the detailed guidelines for assessing and testing a design against those principles. The two are meant to be read together.
No. AOP-31 describes no certification scheme. A National Authority decides whether a design counts as new demolition materiel, and compliance is then demonstrated through analysis validated by testing under AOP-32, ahead of the design being accepted into service, not through an accredited body issuing a certificate.
No, and the document says so directly: its own principles do not remove the need for a full design safety assessment of demolition materiel before it is accepted into service. Meeting AOP-31 is necessary but not, on its own, sufficient.
Each nation's formally designated National Authority, using the definition of "new demolition materiel" set out in STANAG 2818, not AOP-31 itself.
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.