Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANREC 4845
National defence authorities and programme offices defining a soldier system's power, electronics and data architecture before procurement, under AEP-4845
STANREC 4845 is a NATO recommendation, not a binding agreement, naming AEP-4845 Edition A as the reference architecture for a soldier system's power, electronics and data infrastructure.
STANREC 4845 is a NATO Standardization Recommendation covering a soldier system's power, electronics and data infrastructure. As with every STANREC, the distinction that matters most is in its name: unlike a STANAG, it does not commit a nation to ratify anything. NATO's own text is explicit that "Allies 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)" - an invitation, not a ratification obligation. Nothing in this document creates a duty for a supplier to sign up to directly.
The document recommends a single Allied Publication: AEP-4845, Edition A. The stated aim is "to list recommended practices" for "a NATO Soldier System Reference Architecture which is recommended to be used when defining the national target architecture for a soldier system to be procured." The architecture "shall follow the NATO Architectural Framework (NAF v3.1) and provides the different views such as Capability View, Operational View, Service Oriented View, System View and Technical View." NATO frames the benefit in general terms - "this approach will foster operational effectiveness, interoperability and technological innovation" - without specifying the architecture's technical content here; that lives inside AEP-4845 itself. "The STANREC refers to a larger number of standards which cannot be listed here," pointing instead to "the individual volumes of AEP-4845, Edition A."
The AIM clause places this work at a specific point in a programme's life: "when defining the national target architecture for a soldier system to be procured." That is before a soldier-system programme is specified or put to tender, not after. A power, electronics or data architecture chosen once a system is already designed or fielded is materially harder to change than one adopted when a programme's target architecture is first being set. This is Edition 1, and the document states plainly that "this STANREC does not supersede any document" - a new reference architecture, not a replacement for an earlier STANAG or STANREC.
STANREC 4845 has no clauses of its own to audit against. Allies and NATO bodies are asked to "provide feedback to the NSO on the use of Allied standards covered by a STANREC" through the electronic reporting tool (e-Reporting), and the document itself is "to be reviewed in accordance with AAP-03," with the result "recorded within the NATO Standardization Documents Database (NSDD)." That review checks the recommendation's own currency, not an organisation, and the testable content - the architecture's views and requirements - sits inside AEP-4845, not here. Its supervising authority is CNAD, AC/225's NAAG (the NATO Army Armaments Group) and LCGDSS.
STANREC 4845 is a recommendation, not a technical specification: it names a reference architecture to build a soldier system's power, electronics and data infrastructure to, rather than requirements to meet directly, so there is nothing in this document itself to implement in software. The architecture views themselves and any testable content sit inside AEP-4845's own volumes.
What that leaves a programme to do is the ordinary discipline of choosing and evidencing an architecture decision: recording which reference architecture a soldier-system programme's power, electronics and data design is built to, holding that decision and its rationale as a controlled document, and keeping the design-review or approval record that shows the architecture was actually followed as the programme moved from a target architecture toward procurement. ComplyTrain gives a place to hold that record, track who approved it, and keep it current as a programme's soldier-system design evolves.
What ComplyTrain does not do: design a soldier system's power, electronics or data architecture. That is systems-engineering work carried out against AEP-4845's own volumes, not in a compliance platform. Which reference architecture a given programme must build to is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by this page - our standards explorer shows what sits alongside STANREC 4845, and we're glad to talk through what a specific tender is actually asking for.
Tell us how you need to work with STANREC 4845 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. A STANREC is a recommendation: NATO Allies are invited to use the standard it names, without the ratification obligation a STANAG carries. Whether AEP-4845 applies to a specific programme is a question for that programme's contract.
It recommends AEP-4845, Edition A: NATO's reference architecture for a soldier system's power, electronics and data infrastructure, built within the NATO Architectural Framework (NAF v3.1).
A STANAG is an agreement nations ratify and commit to implement. A STANREC recommends a standard without that obligation - Allies are invited to use it and to report their experience, but nothing requires them to.
The document points to a specific moment: when a nation is defining the national target architecture for a soldier system that is going to be procured. Adopting the recommended architecture gets harder, not easier, once a system's power, electronics and data design is already fixed.
No. The document states that it "does not supersede any document" - this is a first edition covering new ground, not a revision of an earlier STANAG or STANREC.
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.
A 90-day plan for the smallest defence suppliers: let the tender set your scope, document what you already do, fix the security basics primes check, and keep the system small enough for two people to maintain.
Learn how to qualify, approve and monitor sub-suppliers, flow down requirements through purchase orders, and keep the records an auditor will ask to see under ISO 9001 clause 8.4 and AQAP.
Learn how to run an ISO 9001 Clause 9.3 management review that turns evidence into decisions, with the right inputs, actionable outputs, and a cadence that fits your risks.