Updated BMWE information sheet on the classification of loitering munitions and drones as weapons of war

The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWE), in conjunction with the Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg), has updated the guidance note on the classification of loitering munitions and drones as weapons of war. The new version, dated 25 June 2026, replaces the previous version published on 1 December 2025. The revision is intended to address the difficulties in drawing clear distinctions that have arisen in practice.

Classification as a weapon of war is of central importance for manufacturers, integrators and suppliers in the drone sector. In particular, it determines whether the manufacture, transport and certain foreign transactions require authorisation under the War Weapons Control Act (KrWaffKontrG).

With the publication of the updated guidance note, the licensing authorities are transitioning away from a broad, pre-emptive classification of items as weapons of war on key points. The focus is now more firmly on whether a drone or loitering munition is actually armed or equipped with warheads.

Legal basis: No. 9 KWL and ‘combat drones’

With regard to loitering munitions and drones, item 9 of the War Weapons List (KWL) remains particularly relevant. The explanatory notes to the KWL cover so-called combat drones, i.e. drones capable of causing destruction. Reconnaissance drones, on the other hand, are not classified as weapons of war. Warheads, fuzes, homing heads, submunitions and launchers are listed separately in the KWL. The new guidance note reinforces this principle: loitering munitions and drones are generally only classified as weapons of war if they have a destructive effect because they are armed or equipped with warheads. According to the guidance note, it is the act of arming them that typically triggers their classification as subject to war weapon controls.

Loitering munitions: a move away from the previous forward deployment

If the system is equipped with a warhead, fuze, propulsion system and target-seeking capability, the BMWE and BMVg continue to classify it as a weapon of war under No. 9 of the KWL. This also applies where no conventional warhead is installed, but other means of action produce the effect on the target. Warheads and fuzes for long-range munitions also remain relevant on their own under numbers 56 and 57 of the KWL, respectively

The key change concerns incomplete systems. Under the previous version, even loitering munitions without a warhead or fuze could, in individual cases, already be classified as weapons of war. According to the view held at the time, specific target acquisition functions, corresponding hardware or software, or functional comparability with a guided missile fitted with a seeker head were, in particular, sufficient for this.

The BMWE and BMVg are now abandoning this approach. Specific software, target acquisition functions or mounting devices for subsequent armament, warheads or fuzes no longer, in themselves, justify classification. Similarly, the guidance note is transitioning away from the previous concept of functional equivalence to seeker heads. According to the current view, it is not possible to identify ‘seeker heads’ in loitering munitions that can be defined with sufficient legal certainty within the meaning of No. 58 KWL.

Drones: Simply preparing to arm them is no longer enough

The updated guidance document takes the same approach with regard to drones. A drone designed for the use of weapons or the carriage of munitions, as well as for return flights or multiple missions, is classified as a weapon of war once it is fitted with armaments or other munitions.

The previous version also covered drones that did not yet carry weapons but were objectively intended for armament or featured technical devices for the subsequent use of weapons.

The BMWE and BMVg have also abandoned this view. Under the new administrative practice, an unarmed drone is therefore not regarded as a weapon of war solely because it has interfaces, mounts or other technical devices for subsequent armament. For manufacturers of modular platforms and integration solutions, this is one of the most important clarifications in the guidance note.

Interceptor drones and launch systems

The previous version generally treated interceptor drones with a purely kinetic effect as weapons of war. Under the new version, this only applies if warheads, fuzes or other interceptor weapons are fitted. The BMWE and BMVg expressly do not classify drones that engage other aerial vehicles through mere collision, nets or electronic countermeasures as weapons of war.

Another new feature is an explicit clarification regarding launch systems for loitering munitions and armed drones. According to the current interpretation, drone catapults and comparable launch systems do not, in principle, fall under No. 10 of the KWL, as these systems cannot be legally distinguished from launch systems for civilian, dual-use or reconnaissance drones. This is to be distinguished from operational launch systems for guided missiles, which are covered independently by No. 10 of the KWL.

What manufacturers still need to bear in mind

The decisive factor remains the specific technical condition of the system: if loitering munitions or a drone are rendered capable of causing destruction through armament or other means, they may be classified as weapons of war. In this regard, the guidance note makes it clear that, as a general rule, it is only the act of arming that triggers the authorisation requirements under the KrWaffKontrG, particularly with regard to manufacture.

In addition, the BMWE and the BMVg adhere to the so-called ‘kit theory’. According to this, even individual components which, when considered in isolation, are not weapons of war may be regarded as such if they are almost complete and can be accessed in a way that allows them to be assembled. There are also no fundamental changes regarding the question of when a first operational prototype – and thus a weapon of war – is deemed to exist. The decisive factor remains not actual deployment in a conflict, but whether the system is objectively mature enough for a militarily meaningful deployment. The guidance note now clarifies previous administrative practice by setting out explicit assessment criteria. These include, in particular, accuracy, reliable target engagement and safe handling by one’s own forces.

Practical guidance

From a legal perspective, the guidance note continues to reflect the authorities’ legal opinion and is not binding, particularly on the courts. In practice, however, it remains the key point of reference because it sets out the current position of the BMWE, which is responsible for issuing licences under the KrWaffKontrG.

For drone manufacturers, the practical value of the updated guidance note lies in the clearer distinction between unarmed platforms and weapons of war. According to the new administrative practice, incomplete loitering munitions, pre-fitted weapon mounting points, mounts, specific software, propulsion systems and certain drone defence systems do not, in and of themselves, constitute weapons of war. The decisive factor is whether the system already possesses destructive capability through armament or other means of action.

Companies should therefore carry out a targeted review of existing classifications. The technical documentation should clearly indicate whether the system is unarmed, whether means of action, warheads, fuzes or interceptor weapons are already installed, and whether only individual components or an almost complete kit are present.

Back to list