STANREC 4839
STANREC 4839 MIMO electronic countermeasure testing recommendation
NATO nations and NATO bodies deciding whether to apply AEP-4839's MIMO electronic countermeasure testing procedures
STANREC 4839 is NATO's non-binding recommendation that nations use AEP-4839 Edition A for MIMO electronic countermeasure testing; adoption is voluntary, not required.
- Edition
- 1
- Published
- 2021-07-14
What it is
STANREC 4839 is a NATO Standardization Recommendation, Edition 1, on multiple input multiple output (MIMO) electronic countermeasure testing procedures. A STANREC is built on the same idea as a STANAG, with one difference that matters: a STANAG is an agreement nations ratify, a STANREC is a recommendation they are free to take up. This document shows that difference directly - nations "are invited to use the Allied standard(s) covered by the STANREC and to provide feedback to the NSO on the use of the covered Allied standard(s)," rather than being committed to anything.
What it recommends
STANREC 4839 carries no testing procedure of its own. Its stated aim is to give "Technical testing recommendations for military systems in relation to Long Term Evolution network configurations with a view to international acceptance and agreement." The point of that agreement, in the document's own words, is that it "enables broader understanding, reliance and possible burden sharing between Allies for operational waveforms, techniques and equipment." The one standard it puts forward is "AEP-4839, Edition A" - everything else in the STANREC is context around that single recommendation, and this page prints no technical detail about the testing methods AEP-4839 itself sets out.
It also names two related recommendations as further reading, not additional obligations: STANREC 4756, covering AEP-4756, on inhibition trial procedures for barrage electronic countermeasures against point-to-point radio links, and STANREC 4805, covering AEP-4805, on compatibility trial procedures for electronic countermeasures against radio controlled improvised explosive devices.
Who is behind it, and how it is kept current
The tasking authority is CNAD, AC/224 NAFAG, ACG3. STANREC 4839 "is to be reviewed in accordance with AAP-03," with the result "recorded within the NATO Standardization Document Database (NSDD)." This is the first edition - the document states plainly that "this STANREC does not supersede any document" - and the letter of promulgation dates it to 14 July 2021.
Where it has force, and where it does not
STANREC 4839 addresses "the participating nations and NATO bodies," not a supplier or manufacturer directly. It binds nobody by itself: whatever an organisation ends up doing comes from a nation's own procedure, a NATO programme office, or a contract that separately invokes AEP-4839, not from this STANREC existing. It is a NATO non-classified document, handled "in accordance with C-M(2002)60," and free of charge - the reproduction restriction that otherwise applies is lifted for "member and partner nations, or NATO commands and bodies."
How it is checked
STANREC 4839 names no certification body, no government quality assurance arrangement, no notified body, and no self-declaration scheme. The only assessment it describes is aimed at the document itself, the periodic AAP-03 review above, not at an organisation, a product, or a testing programme. Whatever review a supplier's MIMO electronic countermeasure testing actually gets is set by whichever nation, programme office or contract requires AEP-4839 on a given programme, and that review sits outside this STANREC entirely.
How we help
STANREC 4839 is a cover document. The testing procedure it points to lives in AEP-4839, and the work of running it happens on a test range against defined network configurations, not inside a compliance tool. What ComplyTrain supports is the documentation trail that any test programme needs, whichever procedure it is required to follow: the procedure describing how a test campaign is planned and run, the training record showing the people running it were briefed on the method, and the audit trail of test results and any corrective actions raised against them.
ComplyTrain does not run electronic countermeasure tests, does not implement AEP-4839's specific testing method, and does not decide whether a programme's testing was adequate. The applicable requirement on any given contract is set by the customer's quality clause, not by us - explore the related standards this STANREC sits alongside, or talk to us about the documentation a test programme needs to hold up under review.
Standards it references
- STANREC 4756Background
- AEP-4756Background
- STANREC 4805Background
- AEP-4805Background
Questions
Is STANREC 4839 mandatory?
No. It is a recommendation, not an agreement nations ratify. The document states that nations "are invited to use the Allied standard(s) covered by the STANREC," not required to. Any obligation a supplier meets comes from a contract or a nation's own procedure that separately requires AEP-4839, not from the STANREC itself.
What is the difference between a STANREC and a STANAG?
A STANAG is an agreement NATO nations ratify, with reservations possible on implementation. A STANREC recommends a practice without asking for that commitment. STANREC 4839 recommends AEP-4839; it does not ratify it.
What does STANREC 4839 actually recommend?
One document: "AEP-4839, Edition A," for testing recommendations covering military systems in relation to Long Term Evolution network configurations. It also points to two related recommendations, STANREC 4756 and STANREC 4805, on other electronic countermeasure trial procedures, as further reading.
Is there a certification for STANREC 4839 or AEP-4839?
No certification, government surveillance, or notified-body scheme is named in the document. The only review it describes is of the STANREC's own currency, in accordance with AAP-03, not an assessment of an organisation or a product.
Does STANREC 4839 cost anything to obtain?
No. NATO standardization documents are free of charge; STANREC 4839 is not sold by NATO or by us.
