Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 4675
NATO nations running in-service munitions surveillance programmes, and the programme managers and service personnel who plan them
STANAG 4675 is the NATO agreement by which member nations commit to run in-service surveillance of munitions using the guidance in AOP-62, AOP-63 and AOP-64.
STANAG 4675 is the NATO Standardization Agreement covering in-service surveillance (ISS) of munitions. Like every STANAG, it is not itself a technical specification: it is the mechanism by which NATO nations agree to implement one. The specification lives in the three Allied Ordnance Publications the agreement names, AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) and AOP-64(A), and this page is about the agreement rather than their content, which is covered on their own pages.
The document states its own purpose directly: it exists "to enable nations to conduct joint in service surveillance programmes of munitions." Rather than each nation building its own surveillance approach from nothing, participating nations agree to work to the same three publications, which makes joint programmes and the exchange of results between nations possible.
Two commitments sit at the centre of the agreement. First, an assessment commitment: a ratifying nation agrees to follow the guidance in AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) and AOP-64(A) when it assesses the safety and reliability of munitions already in service. Second, an information-sharing commitment between nations: a ratifying nation agrees to provide, on demand, the relevant safety and reliability information called for in those same three publications whenever it transfers munitions to another NATO nation. Neither commitment runs to a supplier directly. A STANAG binds a nation; the nation implements it domestically, and it reaches a contractor only where a tender or a contract requires work to be done under AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) or AOP-64(A).
Ratification and implementation are separate steps here as with any STANAG, and a nation can do one without the other. Partner nations, outside NATO membership, are invited to adopt the agreement on a voluntary footing rather than a ratification one.
All three are equally binding on a nation that has ratified and implemented STANAG 4675; the agreement does not rank them. The document separately names AOP-38, NATO's glossary of terms for munitions safety and suitability for service, as related reading rather than a covered or binding publication, and points to AAP-03 only for its reporting forms, covered below.
National decisions on ratification and implementation are recorded in the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD), which is also where a nation's response is checked if there is ever a question about whether it has adopted the agreement. Beyond that, the STANAG asks for two kinds of active reporting: a nation reports its effective implementation on the form at Annex H to AAP-03(J), and a partner nation reports its adoption on the form at Annex G to the same publication.
The agreement itself is reviewed at least once every three years, with the outcome of that review also recorded in the NSDD, and any nation or NATO body can raise a proposed change with the tasking authority at any point for the next review to pick up. This is Edition 1, and it supersedes no earlier document. The tasking authority is the Conference of National Armaments Directors' Ammunition Safety Group (AC/326); the custodian nation is the United Kingdom.
STANAG 4675 does not describe a piece of paperwork you configure once. The actual work, planning a surveillance programme, assessing munitions already in service against the guidance in AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) and AOP-64(A), deciding what a finding means, happens in the day-to-day handling of real materiel by the people qualified to do it. That work does not move into software.
What a compliance platform can genuinely support is the paper trail around it: the surveillance procedures a programme runs to, records of each assessment made against the three AOPs' guidance, corrective actions raised where an assessment falls short, and the reporting history behind a nation's AAP-03(J) return or a partner nation's adoption report. ComplyTrain holds that kind of documentation, training record and audit trail for defence quality programmes generally.
ComplyTrain does not run a surveillance programme, does not assess a munition's condition or reliability, and does not decide whether a shipment is safe to transfer between nations. Which of AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) and AOP-64(A) applies to a given programme, and to what depth, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause. Browse the standards explorer to see what sits alongside STANAG 4675, and talk to us about the evidence trail once you know what your contract points to.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 4675 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.
Only through ratification and a nation's own implementation. A STANAG binds the nations that ratify it, not a company directly; a supplier meets it because a contract or tender says to work to AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) or AOP-64(A), not because the STANAG exists.
STANAG 4675 is the agreement: the commitment by which nations agree to implement the three publications. AOP-62(A), AOP-63(A) and AOP-64(A) are where the actual surveillance guidance lives. Reading the STANAG alone will not tell you what a surveillance programme has to do; that is in the AOPs it covers.
Ratification is a nation's agreement to the STANAG, recorded in the NSDD. Implementation is putting it into effect domestically, and reporting that it has been done on the form at Annex H to AAP-03(J). A nation can ratify without yet having completed implementation, which is why the document separately invites nations to examine their own ratification status and advise the NATO Standardization Office of their intentions.
The United Kingdom. The custodian is the nation responsible for maintaining the STANAG, distinct from the tasking authority, the Conference of National Armaments Directors' Ammunition Safety Group (AC/326), which supervises it.
No. This is Edition 1, and the document states plainly that it does not supersede any earlier document.
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.