Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
ATP-3.3.4.5
NATO nations that ratify STANAG 7191, and the designers of tanker and receiver aircraft air-to-air refuelling equipment whose contracts invoke it
ATP-3.3.4.5 sets the mating dimensions, structural loads, latch forces and electrical signalling interface for the boom-receptacle method of air-to-air refuelling, binding nations through STANAG 7191.
ATP-3.3.4.5 is the NATO Allied Tactical Publication that fixes the physical, structural and electrical interface between a tanker aircraft's refuelling boom and a receiver aircraft's fuel receptacle, the "flying boom" method of air-to-air refuelling. Edition B, Version 1 was promulgated in June 2022; the document's own related-documents list names the edition it replaces, "NATO Standard ATP-3.3.4.5 Air-to-Air (Aerial) Refuelling Equipment: Boom-Receptacle Systems and Interface Requirements Edition A Version 1 June 2013", and its own summary attributes the revision to problems found with the earlier coupled push-pull load requirement, alongside a relaxed nozzle axial-rotation tolerance and a corrected load direction for the receiver aircraft's ultimate area loads. The text originated as an industry document from the Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group (ARSAG), whose own words describe its purpose as providing "recommended requirements" for the interface; NATO later promulgated that text as this publication, and it is the promulgated document's "shall" language, not ARSAG's "recommended", that now carries force. It is organised in two short chapters, one for the tanker's boom system and one for the receiver aircraft's receptacle system, plus seven annexes of dimensioned drawings and tables.
An Allied Tactical Publication is not itself a contract or a law. It acquires force through the STANAG that covers it: here, STANAG 7191, which NATO nations ratify. Ratification is not uniform, and this edition's own Record of Specific Reservations shows exactly that: Greece's Hellenic Air Force states it "does not plan to modify existing receiver F-16 and F-4 A/C to comply with STANAG 7191", Norway's air force limits itself to the receiver-receptacle chapter and uses a national supplement for tanker compliance instead, the United States records that the document "does not obligate the USAF to undertake purchasing new equipment to meet this NATO standard", and France records that it will apply "to future equipment only."
The document's own operative language is written on the hardware, not on a company: "the boom system shall...", "the receiver aircraft shall...". The one point where it names a human role directly is clause 2.1.1.1, where certain installation-angle values "must be determined by the receiver designer for the expected tanker/receiver combinations, at the planned refueling weight and speed ranges." A company is drawn in only once a tender or contract, citing ATP-3.3.4.5 or STANAG 7191, requires the boom or receptacle being built to conform to it.
The tanker's boom system is specified end to end. The nozzle's mating dimensions must conform to Annex A (clause 1.1), and the nozzle must return to within a 1-degree cone after being deflected anywhere within a 60-degree cone when not in contact with a receiver (clause 1.2). The disconnect envelope's inner limit must be at least 60 inches from the fully retracted position, and its outer limit at least 10 inches from full extension if the system has a rate-disconnect or full-time automatic independent-disconnect capability, or at least 30 inches if it does not (clause 1.6.3); a redundant disconnect mechanism, independent of the receiver's own toggle latches, must release within 0.3 seconds of being commanded (clause 1.9). Structurally, the boom is designed to 16,166 lbf ultimate tension fully extended (clause 1.13.2.1.1) without collapsing under 7,500 lbf ultimate compression when jammed (clause 1.13.2.1.2), and to 20,000 lbf ultimate compression fully retracted (clause 1.13.2.2). External fuel spillage limits are equally specific: no measurable leakage before connection (clause 1.12.4.1), a maximum of 25 cc during a normal disconnect (clause 1.12.4.3), and up to 200 cc during an emergency disconnect (clause 1.12.4.4).
The receiver aircraft's receptacle mirrors this. Installation angle is set by a formula tying the receptacle's centreline to both aircraft's fuselage pitch ranges, to a tolerance of ±1 degree (clause 2.1.1.1). A clear path around the receptacle face, 5 feet long and wide forward and narrower aft, must stay free of protruding equipment except for specifically permitted lights (clause 2.1.3.1). The latches must provide a minimum latching force of 4,800 lbf and must not exceed 9,412 lbf during a tension disconnect (clause 2.1.5.2). Structural loads at the nozzle ball joint scale with the angle between the boom and nozzle centrelines: limit loads of 9,000/cos(C) lbf (clause 2.4.1), ultimate tension of 14,000/cos(A) lbf (clause 2.4.2.1), and a fixed 20,000 lbf ultimate compression figure (clause 2.4.2.2).
None of this is offered here as guidance to act on; each figure is reported from the clause that states it, for a reader to take to the specification itself. A few details are genuinely unusual. Several sub-clauses that once governed a signal-advance parameter are marked simply "Deleted" in both chapters (clauses 1.11.1, 1.11.2, and 2.2.1 through 2.2.4), left as numbered placeholders rather than removed from the structure. Annex B's induction-coil construction table closes with a note that "other technical solutions may be acceptable if they can be shown to provide the same results", an explicit equivalency allowance rather than a fixed prescription. And the receptacle's latch-failure requirement runs the opposite way to intuition: on failure, the latches are required to open and release the nozzle rather than lock it in place (clause 2.1.5.3.1), failing under a tension load of 11,500 ± 1,000 lbf (clause 2.1.5.3.2).
The document names no accredited certification body, no notified body and no third-party audit scheme anywhere in its text; its own stated purpose is "to provide the aerial refueling (AR) systems recommended requirements and to standardize the interfaces required", a specification aim, not an assessment one. What it describes instead is national ratification with recorded exceptions: a nation records any reservation against full compliance at the time of promulgation, as Greece, Norway, the United States and France each did for this edition, and the NATO Standardization Document Database holds the complete, current list. At the hardware level, the document mentions physical testing only in passing, a note allows the "tanker boom nozzle poppet surge damper" to be deactivated "for receptacle fuel spillage testing" (clause 2.3.1.2), but it names no external body that performs or witnesses that testing. It is qualification and acceptance work for whoever builds the equipment, checked nationally rather than certified by anyone.
ATP-3.3.4.5 is covered by STANAG 7191, which is what gives it force between NATO nations. It names two related publications for the wider air-to-air refuelling picture: STANAG 3971, which covers ATP-3.3.4.2, the general air-to-air refuelling requirements document this one narrows to the boom-receptacle interface, and STANAG 3447, which covers ATP-3.3.4.6, the sibling publication for the different probe-drogue refuelling method. It also lists a set of US Military Standards for electromagnetic requirements (MIL-STD-464C, MIL-STD-461G), NATO's own STANAG 3614 on the same subject, the Joint Service Specification Guide JSSG-2009, Military Standard MS-27604 for the tanker boom nozzle, SAE ARP 694B for refuelling lighting design, and two further Aerial Refueling Systems Advisory Group reports on refuelling pressures and boom/receptacle guidance; none of these sit in our catalogue, so they are named here rather than linked.
NATO publishes ATP-3.3.4.5 through the NATO Standardization Document Database at no charge. ComplyTrain does not sell it or host a copy; the NSDD listing for ATP-3.3.4.5 is the source.
ATP-3.3.4.5 is a technical engineering interface specification, not a management-system standard: there is no certificate to hold against it, and the work it describes, designing a boom or receptacle to a dimensioned drawing, a structural load case or an electrical signal parameter, then proving it by test, happens on an engineering bench and in flight test, not in a document system. This page offers no design or flying guidance of its own on any of it.
Where ComplyTrain fits is the paperwork a defence customer, prime contractor or national authority asks a supplier to produce around that engineering work: controlled records of the mating-dimension and clearance-envelope checks against the annexes, structural and fuel-spillage test reports for a given unit, and a documented account of any exception a programme records for existing equipment, the contractor's equivalent of the reservations nations record themselves. ComplyTrain holds those procedures, test records and exceptions as controlled, auditable documents, so a supplier has a place to show what was designed, tested and excepted, and when.
ComplyTrain does not design a boom or receptacle interface, run a structural or fuel-spillage test, or make any determination about whether a tanker or receiver aircraft is fit to conduct air-to-air refuelling. That judgement stays with the nations, their airworthiness authorities and the engineers who design and test the equipment. Which tier of NATO refuelling interoperability a given contract requires, and which related publications it pulls in, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by us; the standards explorer shows what sits alongside ATP-3.3.4.5, and we're glad to talk through what a specific tender is asking for.
Tell us how you need to work with ATP-3.3.4.5 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.
Not directly. It binds through STANAG 7191, which NATO nations ratify and then implement within their own air forces; a supplier meets it only when a contract or tender specifies that tanker or receiver equipment must conform to it. There is no general answer to whether it applies, only a contractual one.
No. The document describes no accredited certification scheme, no notified body and no third-party audit. Conformance works through national ratification of STANAG 7191, with reservations recorded for equipment that cannot fully comply, not through a certificate a company can hold.
ATP-3.3.4.5 covers the boom-receptacle system for air-to-air refuelling, and it is covered by STANAG
agreement, STANAG 3447. The two are related, sibling publications for the two NATO refuelling methods, rather than one superseding or building on the other.
Yes. A nation can record a reservation against what it cannot fully apply. This edition's own record shows Greece limiting its receiver commitment to Chapter 2, Norway using a national supplement for tanker compliance, the United States recording no obligation to purchase new equipment, and France applying the publication to future equipment only, with the NATO Standardization Document Database holding the complete, current list.
From NATO's own Standardization Document Database, which lists the catalogue entry for ATP-3.3.4.5. NATO's publications are free of charge; we do not sell or host copies of them.
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.