February 2026 | Jack Overell, Head of Production – Defence, SAE Media Group

In December 2025, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy published new guidance clarifying how loitering munitions, armed drones and related components may be classified as war weapons under the country’s War Weapons Control Act (Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz).

The document responds to a growing number of enquiries from manufacturers, operators and exporters, reflecting the rapid military significance of unmanned systems, particularly loitering munitions and combat capable drones.

Non Binding but Authoritative Clarification

The guidance provides a non binding legal interpretation of how current law is applied in practice, focusing especially on item No. 9 “other missiles” in Germany’s War Weapons List, which forms part of the Act.

According to the Federal Ministry, the intention is to help organizations assess potential regulatory obligations before submitting a formal classification request – and, in some cases, to make such a request unnecessary.

German Customs’ explanatory notes are cited as a key reference, stating:
“Other missiles under no.9 of the War Weapons List also includes combat drones i.e. drones with destructive power.”

Loitering Munitions Generally Classed as War Weapons

The guidance makes clear that complete loitering munitions – meaning systems equipped with a warhead, fuze, engine and target detection capability – bear the characteristics of a war weapon under existing law.

This applies regardless of the type of explosive effect used, including classic warheads, shaped charges, grenades or other explosive payloads.

When Individual Components are Covered

Certain parts of loitering munitions can also be classified as war weapons in their own right, including:

• Warheads
• Fuzes
• Target seekers
• Submunition
• Launchers and launching systems

Engines, however, are assessed differently. Propulsion systems are only treated as war weapons if they have been specifically designed for loitering munitions and cannot reasonably be used for civil, dual use or reconnaissance drones. The guidance stresses that this must be assessed case by case, as no abstract definition is possible.

By contrast, batteries, tail parts and subordinate electronic components are not considered war weapons.

Incomplete Systems may Still Fall Under the Law

Even where a loitering munition does not yet carry a warhead or fuze, it may still be treated as a war weapon if it is otherwise flight capable and functionally designed to track and crash into targets.

This is particularly relevant where commercially available hardware is combined with software specifically programmed for loitering missions. In such cases, the system can be considered functionally equivalent to a guided missile, even without a conventional target seeker.

Armed Drones and Interceptor Drones Covered

The document also confirms that armed drones designed to return after weapon deployment, or to conduct multiple missions, “bear characteristics of a war weapon” under the same legal provision.

Importantly, the type of weapon fitted is irrelevant:

“In principle, the installation of a shotgun is already sufficient.”

Interceptor drones intended to destroy other drones through purely kinetic impact – even without a warhead – are also explicitly deemed war weapons.

Reconnaissance Drones Remain Exempt – With Limits

Pure military reconnaissance drones are not considered war weapons under German law. However, this exemption no longer applies if a platform can also be used for target engagement, or is objectively designed to be armed.

Export Controls Still Apply

The Ministry emphasizes that this guidance deals only with classification under the War Weapons List. Separate obligations may still arise under foreign trade and payments legislation and the EU Dual Use Regulation (EU) 2021/821, particularly for exports.

The Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA) remains the responsible authority for export licensing.

Final Responsibility Lies with Industry

The guidance underlines that only courts can issue final, binding rulings, and that responsibility for compliance ultimately rests with manufacturers and carriers. External technical or legal advice is recommended where uncertainty exists.

Organizations seeking clarification can submit classification requests to the Ministry’s VE6 division, accompanied by concise technical documentation.