Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AMSP-01
NATO and national organizations selecting modelling and simulation standards for development and procurement projects
NATO's reference profile of modelling and simulation standards, recommended rather than mandated, that nations and NATO M&S programmes consult when choosing an interoperability, scenario or environment standard to build to.
AMSP-01, the NATO Modelling and Simulation Standards Profile (NMSSP), is a reference document published by NATO's Modelling and Simulation Group (NMSG). It is not itself a technical specification: it is a survey of the standards available for building modelling and simulation (M&S) systems, organised so that a nation or NATO body choosing a technical architecture for a simulation programme can see what exists, what NATO currently recommends, and where the gaps are. Edition E, Version 1 (September 2021) is the current edition.
AMSP-01 is covered by a NATO Standardization Recommendation, STANREC 4815, and the document says plainly that everything in it "can be seen as covered by the same STANREC, hence, recommended by NATO," and that these standards "are not formally mandated by NATO unless they are covered by a specific NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG)." Only one standard in the whole profile crosses that line: the High Level Architecture (HLA) is, in the document's own words, "the unique interoperability standard mandated by NATO," through STANAG 4603. Everything else in AMSP-01 is a recommendation a nation or programme is invited to use, not a requirement it is bound to meet by the profile alone.
The document names its own audience directly: it is aimed "specifically at NATO member and partner nations, as well as national and NATO organizations, which have requirements to effectively use M&S in support of NATO, coalition and national requirements," and it describes itself as "a suitable guideline document for the relevant M&S standards that should be used in development projects and procurement projects." A commercial supplier is not who this document is written for. Where it reaches a supplier at all, it does so indirectly: through a tender, a contract, or a federation agreement that names one of the standards the profile lists, most commonly HLA under STANAG 4603.
AMSP-01 groups standards using the seven steps of the Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP, IEEE 1730): define simulation objectives, perform conceptual analysis, design the simulation environment, develop it, integrate and test it, execute it, and analyse the results. Against that process it defines eight categories: Methodology, Architecture and Processes; Conceptual Modelling and Scenarios; M&S Interoperability; Information Exchange Data Models; Synthetic Physical Environment; Analysis and Evaluation; Miscellaneous; and Software Engineering.
Methodology, architecture and processes. Architecture Frameworks has no M&S-specific standard, though the NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) is "recognized and supported." Systems Engineering Processes centres on the DSEEP itself, successor to the now-obsolete HLA FEDEP. Verification and Validation lists the SISO Generic Methodology for V&V and Acceptance (GM-VV) and the US DoD's VV&A Recommended Practices Guide and Templates, alongside a candid admission: "no international standard exists to support the V&V and certification of simulation input data," and no methodology exists at all for verifying and validating Human Behaviour Representation.
Conceptual modelling and scenarios. The SISO Base Object Models (BOMs), the Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL) and its successor C2SIM-Initialize, and the Guideline on Scenario Development (GSD). Conceptual modelling itself has no dedicated M&S standard yet; the profile notes general software-engineering standards fill that gap for now.
M&S interoperability. HLA (IEEE 1516 series) is the standard the document calls mandated, through STANAG 4603. Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS, IEEE 1278 series) sits alongside it as current, though its own earlier NATO cover, STANAG 4482, was cancelled and superseded by STANAG 4603. The category also names the Gateway Description and Filtering Languages (GDL/GFL), UCATT's laser-engagement interface, and WebLVC, an emerging protocol for bringing browser-based clients into HLA or DIS federations.
Information exchange data models. The HLA Object Model Template, the SISO Reference for Enumerations for Simulation (covered by STANAG 4855, listed as Study status), the Real-time Platform Reference FOM, the NATO Education and Training Network Federation Architecture and FOM Design (NETN FAFD, published separately as AMSP-04 under STANREC 4800), Link 11 and Link 16 simulation, and C2SIM (covered by STANAG 4856, Study status), which supersedes the older Coalition Battle Management Language. STANAG 5602 (SIMPLE) appears here too, named as a non-M&S-specific standard still widely used to carry Link 11/16 data inside simulations.
Synthetic physical environment. The largest category: source data formats (DTED, GeoTIFF, KML, Shapefile, GRIB, NetCDF), 3D model formats (OpenFlight as the de facto industry standard, with X3D and COLLADA as alternatives), the SEDRIS suite of eight ISO/IEC standards for representing and interchanging environmental data, the OGC CDB standard for synthetic-environment databases, RIEDP for reusing environmental data production processes, and CIGI for image-generator interfacing.
Analysis and evaluation. One named standard, the Distributed Debrief Control Architecture (DDCA), against an acknowledged gap: "no official or 'de facto' standard could be identified" more broadly for this domain.
Miscellaneous and software engineering. No M&S-specific standards in either category, but two flagged problems: no standard yet supports integrating simulation into distance-learning courses, and "the difficult issue of addressing security challenges for M&S is currently not covered by any standards."
The document's conclusions are unusually candid about the state of the field: "where there are too many 'standards' in support of a particular domain it means there is 'no real standard'," and it lists ten recommendations for where standardisation work still needs to happen, among them integrating Architecture Framework concepts into a multi-architecture overlay for the DSEEP, continuing work on M&S-as-a-Service, reinforcing standards for Human Behaviour Representation, addressing extended-reality (xR) interfaces, and resolving the overlap between competing interoperability and environmental-data standards.
NATO publishes AMSP-01 through the NATO Standardization Document Database at no charge. ComplyTrain does not sell it or host a copy; the NSDD listing for AMSP-01 is the source.
AMSP-01 is a reference profile, not something a supplier implements directly. It points at other standards rather than setting requirements of its own, so the actual work only begins once a programme has picked one of the standards it lists: building a federation to STANAG 4603's High Level Architecture, adopting the NETN FAFD for a training exercise, or running a GM-VV verification and validation process before a simulation is accepted for use. That work is procedural and evidentiary rather than something software does on a customer's behalf: federation agreements to draft and version, V&V and accreditation plans and reports to produce and retain, training records for the people building and running the simulation, and a documented trail of which standard's edition a given exercise or delivery actually used. ComplyTrain, as an auditable quality management system, supports exactly that kind of document control and evidence trail in general, once a programme has told us which of these standards its contract or federation agreement actually requires.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not build, test or accredit a simulation system, and it makes no claim that ComplyTrain or a customer is "AMSP-01 certified" or "NATO M&S qualified," because the profile describes no such certification for anyone to hold. Which of these standards apply to a given programme is set by that programme's own contract and technical requirements, not by this page. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside AMSP-01, and we are glad to talk through what a specific contract or federation agreement actually requires.
Tell us how you need to work with AMSP-01 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.
No, not on its own. AMSP-01 is covered by STANREC 4815, a Standardization Recommendation, and the document states that its contents "are not formally mandated by NATO unless they are covered by a specific NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG)." The one exception it names is the High Level Architecture, mandated through STANAG 4603. Everything else becomes a live obligation only when a tender, contract or federation agreement names it.
AMSP-01 is a survey document that lists many M&S standards as recommendations. STANAG 4603 is a Standardization Agreement, a stronger instrument, that specifically mandates one of those standards, the High Level Architecture. AMSP-01 tells a reader HLA exists and is current; STANAG 4603 is what makes using it obligatory for the nations that have ratified it.
No. AMSP-01 lists both HLA and Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) as current interoperability standards, and notes that DIS's own former NATO cover, STANAG 4482, was cancelled and superseded by STANAG 4603 for HLA. Only HLA carries an active NATO mandate; a programme's choice between the two, or another architecture entirely, is set by its own requirements and by whichever STANAG or contract clause applies.
No. AMSP-01 names no certifying body, accreditation scheme or audit process for itself. Where it discusses "accreditation," the document means a specific model or simulation being judged fit for a specific use, decided by a national or programme Technical Authority, not an organization holding a certificate.
Edition E, Version 1, published September 2021. The document does not itself name the edition it replaced.
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.