Increased emphasis on simulation-based acquisition and network-centric warfare within the objective force has posed key challenges within the embedded ground vehicle community. While simulation-based acquisition enables a faster time to field through increased concurrency, tighter decision cycles, more efficient and effective testing; the ultimate goal of rapidly transitioning outputs from the simulation phase of a program to the vehicle design and integration phase is minimally met in today's environment due to varied architectures, levels of fidelity, and design methodologies. In the same respect, the dynamic nature of network-centric warfare further strains legacy architectures, as they cannot handle the new and often dynamic operational requirements. Two technologies currently under consideration with respect to their ability to solve some or all of these design and architectural gaps are the Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) family of services and the High-Level Architecture (HLA). CORBA is a distributed object architecture developed by the Object Management Group (OMG), and though originally developed for information systems, has been extended to accommodate real-time and embedded requirements. HLA is the Department of Defense mandated architecture for distributed simulation. HLA includes a runtime infrastructure (RT) and one or more federates combined to form the simulation system, or federation. Though both CORBA and HLA are used to build complex, distributed systems, there are differences in these two architectures that complicate their use within a single system. This paper evaluates the suitability of both CORBA and HLA for use in ground combat vehicles, as both stand-alone technologies and in conjunction with one another.