Alternate 1990s ORBAT

It's more than just nobody bothered to change it; there was no need, with I Corps staying in Germany.

Do the Dutch also stay in Germany.

Is the US Navy bigger than OTL i presume.

1) was a mistake; I wanted the carrier as the Spruance. I'll change the name of the destroyer. I like the name Raymond A. Spruance for a carrier. Whether that would be an additional Nimitz class or an alternative name to the Enterprise of the Ford class is still up in the air. 
2) The Field Force is an experimental concept here; the MOD wants to have a medium-sized force with a full range of capabilities from an armoured infantry battlegroup to motorised/mechanised forces to air assault forces with the full spectrum of organic supporting assets. It's more of an experiment than anything, but it would be able to deploy on a peacekeeping or counterinsurgency mission faster than a heavy division but with more firepower than the light division. It's sort of like an enlarged strike brigade with an armoured battlegroup added to its ORBAT. A contingency such as Sierra Leone in 2000 would see them used, possibly with Boko Haram in Nigeria or something. 
3) The idea there is to keep a scaled down presence in Eastern Europe but with significant combat capabilities. My thinking is that the fighter wings require less of a footprint than a full armoured division or a corps. They would support the Poles and Slovaks against any Russian offensive while V Corps and I British Corps crossed in from Germany, and III Corps landed by air and began drawing its equipment from POMCUS sites. 
4) Post Cold War reductions would probably see 50th Armored Division disbanded or scaled down; the 34th Infantry Division would probably activate as a light division. The ARNG & USAR units under 5th Army are not the only reserves available, but they are the units under the two ARNG/USAR reserve corps commands, VII & IX Corps. 
5) That's just a name issue. I figure most of the units are leg infantry, with the cavalry squadrons being equipped with light tanks and LAVs. The combat manouver battalions would be moving on foot, in trucks, or by helicopter as per OTL leg units, so it didn't seem to make much difference to me with the naming. I'll reconsider it. 
6) ITTL, the Post Cold War world sees a resurgent Russia with a foothold in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltics which is the main threat. Thus, V Corps stays in Germany with a wartime role in Poland, where NATO expects to fight the West Germany WW3 scenario, expect with a somewhat smaller force on both sides given no Warsaw Pact. The American and British footprint in Poland would likely be a rotational brigade from each nation, in the south and north respectively. Korea, the ME, and China are all potential hotspots, which is why the 2nd Infantry Division maintains a mostly heavy force ITTL. Without the need for counterinsurgency, the Army never develops the Stryker, with the light armour role being fulfilled with LAV-25s. The Marine Corps is also upgunned somewhat post Desert Storm, with the activation of a second armoured battalion for the 2nd Marine Division and additional heavy units for the 3rd Marine Division. 

In the World War Three scenario, V Corps would be in Poland, reinforced by III Corps. II MEF would go to Norway or the Southern Flank depending on the situation, while I Corps would be in Korea with III MEF. I MEF & XVIII Corps would go to the Middle East if needed there, or Korea and Europe respectively if not needed in the ME. 

1.) It would be nominally better to make it a Ford class carrier, given the presence of the Spruance class destroyers. However, it would further mess around with USN ship naming conventions as to render them nonsensical. Nimitiz was the only admiral to get a carrier in @, by virtue of dying at the right time. Here, Spruance would be 45+ years dead, which detracts from any urgency/immediacy to pay tribute and any political support base.

2.) It is a slightly reinforced brigade at the moment, with all of the logistical issues inherent in that. If it had a strength of 2 brigades, then the nomenclature might make more sense. The Sierra Leone situation, should it occur, is far better suited to one of the light brigades of 6th Division or indeed another unit made up of the forces omitted thus far. Those would be 1 PARA and however many other Gurkha battalions are in service; that, plus unbrigaded Infantry, would be sufficient for the potential formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade.

Furthermore, it is mentioned in the US section that counterinsurgency does not develop as a post 1991 priority, yet here it is for the British Army. Broadly speaking, you are trying to maintain a 1990 sized British Army of 4 divisions on a post Options for Change force.

3.) It isn’t a matter of logistics that motivated my observation, but politics. The Two Plus Four and Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany involved some actual commitments not to move nuclear weapons and troops into East Germany and some other tacit agreements on NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The expansion seems to have occurred here, but permanent forward basing in Eastern Europe is a red flag to a bull. It is too small to deter Russia and large enough to rub its nose in it.

It is for this reason, as well as the others, that you might want to flesh out the background and circumstances of the scenario; otherwise, it is a nice orbat in a vacuum.

4.) The whole Regular Army is detailed, so it may be of utility to make a clear distinction of the National Guard by including the non-NATO contingency units. My gut feeling is that you are one Corps too many in the Guard and have an extra field army level command/HQ for no reason. A single heavy corps for NATO contingency missions of 35 ID, 38 ID, 42 ID and 49 AD would then free up 28 ID, 29 ID, 34 ID and 43 ID for appropriate missions and keep 40 ID and either 50 AD or 36 ID for Pacific reinforcement. It doesn’t put all of your eggs in one basket, where they are currently.

5.) When we start adding multiple light tank battalions to a division, it isn’t a light one anymore.

6.) Russia is the type of foe that this force structure is designed to counter, but the devil is in the detail. I would also factor in 4th Marine Division for ETO missions.

I assume the Polish Air Force has mostly gone with Western fighters like the F-16 and maybe the F-15 replacing their Mig-29s.