Any product that has undergone codification receives specific fixed parameters: composition, dimensions, tactical and technical characteristics, operating conditions. But the reality of defense equipment manufacturing during active combat operations is that products are continuously being improved — sometimes significantly, sometimes minimally. The question arises: how should these changes be documented and is new codification required?
The MoD describes three common scenarios, each requiring a different approach.
Scenario 1: Major Design Changes → New Product, New Codification
If the manufacturer has changed the frame, installed more powerful engines, changed the type of communication or control system — the tactical and technical characteristics of the product have changed significantly: range has increased, payload capacity has grown, dynamic performance has improved. This is effectively a different product.
In this case, the new sample undergoes codification through the standard procedure and receives its own NATO Stock Number (NSN). Both samples — the previous and the upgraded version — may be supplied in parallel to the Defense Forces under different codes.
Indicators of major changes: new frame or load-bearing structure; replacement of propulsion system/engines; change in communication type, control system, or purpose; increase in range/payload capacity beyond established thresholds.
Scenario 2: Minor Improvements Without Structural Change → Type Trials + TS Amendment
The manufacturer has installed a higher-resolution camera, used a lighter battery, applied a stronger frame without changing the structure. As a result, flight range has partially increased and dynamic performance has slightly improved — but the design and purpose have not significantly changed.
In this case, the procedure is as follows:
- Conduct type trials — confirm the new characteristics in accordance with the approved TPM
- Based on the results, prepare Protocols and certify them with an Act
- Prepare a TS Amendment Notice and send it to the authority that registered the TS
Important: the NSN code remains unchanged — the updated sample will be recorded under the "old" code. However, once the changes are entered, the previous unupdated version can no longer be supplied to the Defense Forces.
Scenario 3: Like-for-Like Component Replacement → Incoming Inspection
The simplest case: the manufacturer has replaced one supplier's battery with another's battery of the same specifications, or switched from one type of propeller to a similar one. The TTX of the product itself has not changed.
In this case, it is sufficient to conduct an incoming inspection procedure for the purchased components — confirming that their characteristics match the declared specifications. No new trials or TS amendments are required.
| Scale of Changes | What Is Required | What Happens to the NSN |
|---|---|---|
| Major design changes | Full codification of new sample | New NSN |
| Minor improvements | Type trials + TS amendment | NSN unchanged, old version retired |
| Like-for-like component replacement | Incoming inspection of components | NSN unchanged |
Why It's Important Not to Make Mistakes When Documenting Changes
A mistake in classifying the scale of changes can have serious consequences. If a manufacturer has made major design changes but has not undergone new codification, they are effectively supplying a product that does not match the parameters recorded in the registry. This is a breach of contract conditions and potentially a safety issue for personnel.
On the other hand, if a manufacturer unnecessarily launches the full codification procedure for minor changes, they are wasting time and resources that could have been saved.
DOPUSK recommendation: for any changes to an already-codified product — first consult with specialists on classifying the scale of changes. This takes a few hours but can save months of unnecessary work or legal risks.