First off: This is not a vs thread in any way.
I'm gonna try to present and contrast two - at first glance - almost-identically designed military structures in this thread. A purely amateurish attempt at this. And brace yourself, it's a long one, and text-only. No orbat lists, no graphics. I will also attempt to not put too many comparisons in here, to prevent a "this-is-better-than-that" view; with regard to capability, occasionally that of course can't be avoided.
I have picked the Dutch Military (RDM) and the German Intervention Forces (GIF) in particular since both are active forces within NATO, with not too dissimilar terrain and role specializations (although there are definitive differences!). In addition, both use extremely similar equipment, making it easier to refrain from direct equipment comparison, especially down to the "my-radar-is-better-than-yours".
Another rather similar structure is formed by the active, non-territorial components of the Australian Military for example, but with local factors (coastline, no directly bordering states) playing into it a lot and modifying it considerably. Another very interesting comparison would - surprisingly - be the Bulgarian Military, with a rather similar structure when one discounts the units assigned to the territorial East and West Commands. Would in particular be an interesting comparison as this is a recently-transformed WARPAC military of course.
A short explanation: The Intervention Forces (Eingreifkräfte) are a strategic subset of the German Army, created with the current transformation. The "GIF" are intended to be capable of fighting a regional conflict by itself. The borders between GIF and the remaining Bundeswehr forces are somewhat fluent, but each unit in the Bundeswehr is technically assigned a fixed role in some way, declaring it part of the GIF or other strategic subsets. The below reflects those forces assigned to the GIF or as dual-role units for GIF and other subsets (this is mostly limited to e.g. engineers and other support assets).
I will start with a rough structural presentation. I am discounting the Dutch forward-deployed marine battalion in Aruba in this comparison. I am also going with the transformational future structure for each force. And as a third item, i'm lumping in the EK and EK/SK elements of JgRgt 1 with the German components (JgBtl 292) of D/F Brig.
In both forces, the following is present:
In land forces
There are two really major structural differences between both militaries:
Now, the whole thing does look rather similar, just with marine or airmobile forces respectively, and airborne vs ground-based air defence?
Current procurement seems to indicate both getting even closer, with Germany potentially procuring amphibious units (capable of landing the infantry units), and the Dutch military likely reducing aircraft numbers. However, the GIF will retain a large air mobility plus compared to the RDM (see below).
Now, we go and take apart the whole above structure, as far as the similar structures go. I won't start with the combat brigades, but with combat support.
-----
One very stark - but not obvious - difference is that Germany utilizes a rather huge amount of artillery in its Intervention Forces, unlike the Netherlands. The RDM has exactly two armoured artillery units in its whole structure - one in each combined-arms brigade, with two batteries of 8 PzH 2000 each. In contrast, the GIF supports each combined-arms brigade organically with three batteries of 8 PzH 2000, and adds another two such batteries and four batteries with 8 GMLRS each at the general staff level above that. The RDM Marines are supported by two 120mm mortar companies, while the GIF Infantry battalions are supported by an artillery battalion tailored as heavy initial-entry support with two PzH 2000 batteries and one GMLRS battery. In total this tailors out as 24 PzH 2000 as indirect fire support for the RDM, and 80 PzH 2000 and 40 GMLRS within the GIF - a rather extreme difference. In addition to this difference in numbers, the GIF has numerous RSTA assets in the form of UAVs deployed with all artillery units.
Other combat-support units and the logistics brigades are near-identical, even if structured somewhat differently. Each force draws from these dedicated medical units, supply/transport, signals, maintenance and non-organic engineer forces at very similar force levels. Both forces also have a reconnaissance/observation/ISTAR battalion with considerable UAV and ground-based recon capacity at this level. The GIF has some (mostly numerical) advantages in some fields; for example, considerably higher electronic warfare capacities in the form of a full battalion, while the RDM only employs a single company for this purpose.
The airmobile brigades and their aviation support units actually don't differ too much. In both cases the airmobile brigade, within the overall framework, is primarily tasked as special forces of sorts, intended for evacuation ops and similar non-standard military undertakings. The aviation support for the RDM is formed by 29 AH-64D Apache Longbow, 17 CH-47F and 17 AS532U2 Cougar Mk2. The GIF in comparison will employ between 30 and 40 Tiger, 20 CH-53G in various versions and some 30 to 40 NH-90; potentially up to around a dozen Bo-105 as unarmed recon and liaison assets. The latter does look like somewhat higher numbers, however these helos also support one of the two light infantry battalions in addition to the airmobile brigade; for the RDM, we would definitely have to add the 8 naval NH-90 TTH for a good comparison of numbers, as these could be utilized with the marines. In either case, CSAR assets would also come out of these units.
The airmobile brigades themselves each retain three maneuver battalions, with an organic light fire support and air defence capability at brigade level. There are obviously equipment differences, but structurally - and capability-wise - they're rather close, with a similar disposition of infantry and organic AT platoons.
If we look at the combined-arms brigades, there are already structural differences at brigade level, indicating local preferences of sorts. In the RDM, both brigades are mechanized brigades with one tank and two mechanized infantry battalions; in the GIF, the "core" brigade is an armour brigade with two tank and one mechanized infantry battalion, while the other brigade retains one tank and one mechanized infantry battalion. Equipment-wise they'll be near-identical, with both forces utilizing Leopard 2 and the Puma not having some miracle-like advantage over the CV9035NL.
The higher amount of infantry would of course give the RDM a clear advantage in any medium-term "clear - hold - build" strategy, while the GIF as initial-entry forces for a larger military with dedicated "hold - build" forces concentrates on the breakthrough, the "clear" part. The higher level of artillery fire-support (above) indicates similar intentions.
As for the infantry units outside the combined-arms brigades - the marines for the RDM, the light infantry for the GIF - these of course represent somewhat differing roles in some regard. The RDM needs marines and the relevant transport assets to reinforce its overseas presence if needed; the GIF has two units with a rather similar internal layout of light and medium forces to have an airlifted similar initial-entry capacity for various purposes. Both forces have these units at least partially embedded into international units intended for their purposes, the D/F Brigade and the Royal 3rd Commando Brigade respectively.
The transport assets assigned to these units are in both cases rather "oversized", in order to be capable of lifting additional units in the same way. For the difference in assets, see below.
-----
Now for the navy. I will discount the Dutch LPDs in that regard, as i'd claim them primarily as transport assets for the marines, even if of course there are considerable multi-role possibilities.
The frigate squadrons consist of 7 ships for the GIF - three AAW, four ASW/GP - whereas the RDM employs 6 units - four AAW, two ASW/GP. The GIF ASW units are considerably larger and more capable, employing two helos instead of one in the RDM units, and prepared to deploy towed array sonar. In contrast, i'd rate the Dutch AAW units slightly more capable, as they embark a higher amount of missiles for their purpose (32 ESSM, 32 SM-2 vs 32 ESSM, 24 SM-2). Again, the GIF AAW units are somewhat more capable as multi-role vessels, with two helos embarked. Neither navy has any kind of notable range or speed advantage in deploying, and both use near-identical sensor and effector systems.
The patrol squadrons probably show the most considerable difference. In the RDM, this will consist of the 4 Holland-class OPVs, open-ocean patrollers with an extensive sensor outfit. The GIF in contrast uses the 5 K130-class "light frigates", which have somewhat less high-sea endurance, but actually contribute considerable effectors to the framework in the form of a total of 20 land-attack cruise missiles. Their organic self-defense weapons outfit similarly is somewhat more extensive and capable. Another notable difference is the Holland embarking a NH-90 helo, while the K130 does not have the facilities to permanently support a helicopter, and instead will employ two VTOL UAVs to extend its sensor space. Neither squadron supplies any ASW capability to the framework, although the RDM vessels could likely embark and support a suitably equipped NH-90 for this purpose.
The MCM squadrons primarily differ in size, however the GIF in this case can take advantage of the modular pool in its overall forces in that regard. The RDM employs 7 Tripartite minehunters plus 3 vessels modified to control drones. The GIF employs 6 units of similar capability at any time, in a mix of minehunters and drone control vessels as needed. Unlike the RDM squadron, the GIF squadron is supported by a frigate-sized tender as a 7th ship, utilized as squadron command and supply vessel; obviously extending the squadrons endurance in-theater.
The submarine squadrons are rather straight: Both forces can rely on four SSKs for this purpose, with the RDM Walrus' somewhat larger than the GIF Type 212A. The RDM subs are tailored more towards longer patrols with high range and a larger weapons capacity, while the GIF subs with AIP are somewhat better suited to certain operations with a high necessity for stealth. The Walrus also employ Sub-Harpoon AShM, which is somewhat balanced out by the GIF subs capability for embarking long-range DM2A4 guided torpedoes. The GIF subs currently employ somewhat more modern sensors and electronics, however the future upgrade of the Walrus might cancel that.
The support units in either case consist of another two ships, in either force one of them being a medium-sized AOR. The RDM will in addition employ a dual-purpose ship with replenishment capability (JSS) configured depending on need, while the GIF can assign a second tender to either the patrol squadron or the submarines, giving either unit certain considerable advantages.
The GIF might receive two ships with a similar multi-role capability for potential replenishment to the Dutch JSS.
As aviation assets employed aboard these ships go, the GIF with somewhat higher ASW focus of course also employs some more helos; in a maximized modular approach, the ships in the frigate squadron can employ 14 ASW helicopters, currently upgraded Lynx. The RDM can embark 6 ASW helos in the frigate squadron, and another 4 with the patrol squadron. The GIF and RDM AORs can employ 2 and 3 VERTREP helicopters respectively, with the current Sea Kings in both cases likely to be replaced by NH-90 transport helicopters; the RDM JSS in a replenishment role will likely embark similar numbers. The two German tenders (without a hangar) can embark and sustain a helicopter for a limited time, typically also a medium VERTREP helo each. The Dutch LPDs and JSS can add considerable helicopter capacity to this of course, although depending on the type of JSS to be procured for the GIF, this would likely be matched in the future.
Both forces can draw sealift assets from MCCE MSSC. This gives either force access to up to 15 standard commercial sealift ships within a 30-day timeframe - in the case of the higher-reaction GIF the usual run-up time to a deployment, i.e. a full mobilization. MCCE can also organize additional sealift and cargo transport assets for its members through commercial charter.
Without using MCCE, the GIF has access to up to 5 sealift ships through the ARK project, a joint initiative with Denmark; these ships are normally contributed to MCCE, but are primarily intended for German and Danish support. The GIF can also draw on a rather limited number of smaller supply ships from the Bundeswehr's Support Forces.
-----
As Air Forces go, the RDM has a numerical advantage, but - for the short- to medium-term - no real capacities advantage. The RDM currently employs around 100 F-16AM/BM, distributed in three multirole and one fighter/QRA squadron. This is to be replaced by some 85 F-35A - or other 4.5th/5th-gen aircraft - likely in similar distribution. The GIF takes a modular approach, able to rely on a certain percentage from each Luftwaffe combat wing; by current percentage numbers, the GIF can assign some 70 aircraft, mostly Eurofighter Typhoon, distributed into one fighter and two squadron-sized strike modules, with a number of Tornados and Eurohawk UAVs for Recce and SEAD tasks where necessary. By next decade, both forces will have fully introduced and will be able to utilize air-launched cruise missiles in strategic strike missions. The approach of the GIF, assigning a percentage from all Luftwaffe wings, ensures that the GIF will in theory literally always be able to rely on all these aircraft being combat-capable, with instant replacement of attrition - this mitigates the numerical advantage of the RDM of course.
As tanker/transport assets go, the ball is clearly with the GIF. Either force will employ 2 larger multirole tanker/transport aircraft; KDC-10 for the RDM, A310 MRTT for the GIF. The GIF, in addition to that, would typically be able to rely on at least 5 A400M configured as tankers. As transport assets go, the GIF adds at least another 15 A400M in pure transport role to that, while the RDM will only have 4 C-130H. Again the GIF can rely on attrition replacement and support from the respective Luftwaffe wings.
Both nations are part of international initiatives intended to provide further airlift capacity; in the case of the GIF, this would be SALIS, in the case of the RDM, both SALIS and NATO SAC. SALIS could provide either force with up to 6 An-124-100, NATO SAC could provide the RDM with 3 C-17 in addition to that; in both cases, the number of flight hours available to the RDM and GIF as part of these initiatives would be limited.
Both forces have access to a limited number of ex-commercial passenger/cargo aircraft to move troops.
One untouched subjects are aviation support assets, something i'm not firm with either. One notable difference in that regard would be for example that the RDM only operates a single NATO Deployable Air Control Center, while the GIF will have two units of a similar role. Both forces of course have the necessary maintenance, support and force protection assets to support their air assets and air bases. Both forces currently have access to NATO Nuclear Sharing, with a USAFE MUNSS assigned for this purpose; both contingents are stationed in Germany (Büchel and Spangdahlem respectively), and rather unlikely to be retained for the medium-term future. Both forces have access to AEW&C assets in the form of NATO's joint E-3 AWACS squadron.
-----
So... i think i'll finish this here. Nope, no summary, no conclusions drawn by me. Take it for what it is, a pure write-up. Perhaps a source for some of your own thoughts about either structure, or their contrast?
Comments and especially corrections of course very welcome.
edit: MCCE, AWACS and some minor points added.
edit2: a few details modified.
I'm gonna try to present and contrast two - at first glance - almost-identically designed military structures in this thread. A purely amateurish attempt at this. And brace yourself, it's a long one, and text-only. No orbat lists, no graphics. I will also attempt to not put too many comparisons in here, to prevent a "this-is-better-than-that" view; with regard to capability, occasionally that of course can't be avoided.
I have picked the Dutch Military (RDM) and the German Intervention Forces (GIF) in particular since both are active forces within NATO, with not too dissimilar terrain and role specializations (although there are definitive differences!). In addition, both use extremely similar equipment, making it easier to refrain from direct equipment comparison, especially down to the "my-radar-is-better-than-yours".
Another rather similar structure is formed by the active, non-territorial components of the Australian Military for example, but with local factors (coastline, no directly bordering states) playing into it a lot and modifying it considerably. Another very interesting comparison would - surprisingly - be the Bulgarian Military, with a rather similar structure when one discounts the units assigned to the territorial East and West Commands. Would in particular be an interesting comparison as this is a recently-transformed WARPAC military of course.
A short explanation: The Intervention Forces (Eingreifkräfte) are a strategic subset of the German Army, created with the current transformation. The "GIF" are intended to be capable of fighting a regional conflict by itself. The borders between GIF and the remaining Bundeswehr forces are somewhat fluent, but each unit in the Bundeswehr is technically assigned a fixed role in some way, declaring it part of the GIF or other strategic subsets. The below reflects those forces assigned to the GIF or as dual-role units for GIF and other subsets (this is mostly limited to e.g. engineers and other support assets).
I will start with a rough structural presentation. I am discounting the Dutch forward-deployed marine battalion in Aruba in this comparison. I am also going with the transformational future structure for each force. And as a third item, i'm lumping in the EK and EK/SK elements of JgRgt 1 with the German components (JgBtl 292) of D/F Brig.
In both forces, the following is present:
In land forces
- two combined-arms brigades
- one airmobile brigade
- similar-sized combat support units for these
- similar-sized aviation units to support the airmobile brigade
- one logistics brigade
- special forces, roughly one battalion
- one frigate squadron
- one patrol squadron
- one MCM squadron
- identically-sized submarine forces
- similar support/supply units for the above
- three multirole squadrons (about 70 aircraft)
- similar-sized large-scale tanker assets
- force protection and support assets
There are two really major structural differences between both militaries:
- GIF: two (airmobile) infantry battalions with relevant transport assets; considerably higher organic airlift assets
- RDM: two marine battalions with relevant transport assets; considerably higher organic sealift assets
- GIF: one ground-based air defense regiment (9 Patriot batteries) and one (non-organic) tactical air-defense regiment (6 Gepard batteries)
- RDM: one airborne air defense squadron (about 20 aircraft), one ground-based air defense battalion (4 Patriot batteries), some medium-range air defense assets (NASAMS procurement)
Now, the whole thing does look rather similar, just with marine or airmobile forces respectively, and airborne vs ground-based air defence?
Current procurement seems to indicate both getting even closer, with Germany potentially procuring amphibious units (capable of landing the infantry units), and the Dutch military likely reducing aircraft numbers. However, the GIF will retain a large air mobility plus compared to the RDM (see below).
Now, we go and take apart the whole above structure, as far as the similar structures go. I won't start with the combat brigades, but with combat support.
-----
One very stark - but not obvious - difference is that Germany utilizes a rather huge amount of artillery in its Intervention Forces, unlike the Netherlands. The RDM has exactly two armoured artillery units in its whole structure - one in each combined-arms brigade, with two batteries of 8 PzH 2000 each. In contrast, the GIF supports each combined-arms brigade organically with three batteries of 8 PzH 2000, and adds another two such batteries and four batteries with 8 GMLRS each at the general staff level above that. The RDM Marines are supported by two 120mm mortar companies, while the GIF Infantry battalions are supported by an artillery battalion tailored as heavy initial-entry support with two PzH 2000 batteries and one GMLRS battery. In total this tailors out as 24 PzH 2000 as indirect fire support for the RDM, and 80 PzH 2000 and 40 GMLRS within the GIF - a rather extreme difference. In addition to this difference in numbers, the GIF has numerous RSTA assets in the form of UAVs deployed with all artillery units.
Other combat-support units and the logistics brigades are near-identical, even if structured somewhat differently. Each force draws from these dedicated medical units, supply/transport, signals, maintenance and non-organic engineer forces at very similar force levels. Both forces also have a reconnaissance/observation/ISTAR battalion with considerable UAV and ground-based recon capacity at this level. The GIF has some (mostly numerical) advantages in some fields; for example, considerably higher electronic warfare capacities in the form of a full battalion, while the RDM only employs a single company for this purpose.
The airmobile brigades and their aviation support units actually don't differ too much. In both cases the airmobile brigade, within the overall framework, is primarily tasked as special forces of sorts, intended for evacuation ops and similar non-standard military undertakings. The aviation support for the RDM is formed by 29 AH-64D Apache Longbow, 17 CH-47F and 17 AS532U2 Cougar Mk2. The GIF in comparison will employ between 30 and 40 Tiger, 20 CH-53G in various versions and some 30 to 40 NH-90; potentially up to around a dozen Bo-105 as unarmed recon and liaison assets. The latter does look like somewhat higher numbers, however these helos also support one of the two light infantry battalions in addition to the airmobile brigade; for the RDM, we would definitely have to add the 8 naval NH-90 TTH for a good comparison of numbers, as these could be utilized with the marines. In either case, CSAR assets would also come out of these units.
The airmobile brigades themselves each retain three maneuver battalions, with an organic light fire support and air defence capability at brigade level. There are obviously equipment differences, but structurally - and capability-wise - they're rather close, with a similar disposition of infantry and organic AT platoons.
If we look at the combined-arms brigades, there are already structural differences at brigade level, indicating local preferences of sorts. In the RDM, both brigades are mechanized brigades with one tank and two mechanized infantry battalions; in the GIF, the "core" brigade is an armour brigade with two tank and one mechanized infantry battalion, while the other brigade retains one tank and one mechanized infantry battalion. Equipment-wise they'll be near-identical, with both forces utilizing Leopard 2 and the Puma not having some miracle-like advantage over the CV9035NL.
The higher amount of infantry would of course give the RDM a clear advantage in any medium-term "clear - hold - build" strategy, while the GIF as initial-entry forces for a larger military with dedicated "hold - build" forces concentrates on the breakthrough, the "clear" part. The higher level of artillery fire-support (above) indicates similar intentions.
As for the infantry units outside the combined-arms brigades - the marines for the RDM, the light infantry for the GIF - these of course represent somewhat differing roles in some regard. The RDM needs marines and the relevant transport assets to reinforce its overseas presence if needed; the GIF has two units with a rather similar internal layout of light and medium forces to have an airlifted similar initial-entry capacity for various purposes. Both forces have these units at least partially embedded into international units intended for their purposes, the D/F Brigade and the Royal 3rd Commando Brigade respectively.
The transport assets assigned to these units are in both cases rather "oversized", in order to be capable of lifting additional units in the same way. For the difference in assets, see below.
-----
Now for the navy. I will discount the Dutch LPDs in that regard, as i'd claim them primarily as transport assets for the marines, even if of course there are considerable multi-role possibilities.
The frigate squadrons consist of 7 ships for the GIF - three AAW, four ASW/GP - whereas the RDM employs 6 units - four AAW, two ASW/GP. The GIF ASW units are considerably larger and more capable, employing two helos instead of one in the RDM units, and prepared to deploy towed array sonar. In contrast, i'd rate the Dutch AAW units slightly more capable, as they embark a higher amount of missiles for their purpose (32 ESSM, 32 SM-2 vs 32 ESSM, 24 SM-2). Again, the GIF AAW units are somewhat more capable as multi-role vessels, with two helos embarked. Neither navy has any kind of notable range or speed advantage in deploying, and both use near-identical sensor and effector systems.
The patrol squadrons probably show the most considerable difference. In the RDM, this will consist of the 4 Holland-class OPVs, open-ocean patrollers with an extensive sensor outfit. The GIF in contrast uses the 5 K130-class "light frigates", which have somewhat less high-sea endurance, but actually contribute considerable effectors to the framework in the form of a total of 20 land-attack cruise missiles. Their organic self-defense weapons outfit similarly is somewhat more extensive and capable. Another notable difference is the Holland embarking a NH-90 helo, while the K130 does not have the facilities to permanently support a helicopter, and instead will employ two VTOL UAVs to extend its sensor space. Neither squadron supplies any ASW capability to the framework, although the RDM vessels could likely embark and support a suitably equipped NH-90 for this purpose.
The MCM squadrons primarily differ in size, however the GIF in this case can take advantage of the modular pool in its overall forces in that regard. The RDM employs 7 Tripartite minehunters plus 3 vessels modified to control drones. The GIF employs 6 units of similar capability at any time, in a mix of minehunters and drone control vessels as needed. Unlike the RDM squadron, the GIF squadron is supported by a frigate-sized tender as a 7th ship, utilized as squadron command and supply vessel; obviously extending the squadrons endurance in-theater.
The submarine squadrons are rather straight: Both forces can rely on four SSKs for this purpose, with the RDM Walrus' somewhat larger than the GIF Type 212A. The RDM subs are tailored more towards longer patrols with high range and a larger weapons capacity, while the GIF subs with AIP are somewhat better suited to certain operations with a high necessity for stealth. The Walrus also employ Sub-Harpoon AShM, which is somewhat balanced out by the GIF subs capability for embarking long-range DM2A4 guided torpedoes. The GIF subs currently employ somewhat more modern sensors and electronics, however the future upgrade of the Walrus might cancel that.
The support units in either case consist of another two ships, in either force one of them being a medium-sized AOR. The RDM will in addition employ a dual-purpose ship with replenishment capability (JSS) configured depending on need, while the GIF can assign a second tender to either the patrol squadron or the submarines, giving either unit certain considerable advantages.
The GIF might receive two ships with a similar multi-role capability for potential replenishment to the Dutch JSS.
As aviation assets employed aboard these ships go, the GIF with somewhat higher ASW focus of course also employs some more helos; in a maximized modular approach, the ships in the frigate squadron can employ 14 ASW helicopters, currently upgraded Lynx. The RDM can embark 6 ASW helos in the frigate squadron, and another 4 with the patrol squadron. The GIF and RDM AORs can employ 2 and 3 VERTREP helicopters respectively, with the current Sea Kings in both cases likely to be replaced by NH-90 transport helicopters; the RDM JSS in a replenishment role will likely embark similar numbers. The two German tenders (without a hangar) can embark and sustain a helicopter for a limited time, typically also a medium VERTREP helo each. The Dutch LPDs and JSS can add considerable helicopter capacity to this of course, although depending on the type of JSS to be procured for the GIF, this would likely be matched in the future.
Both forces can draw sealift assets from MCCE MSSC. This gives either force access to up to 15 standard commercial sealift ships within a 30-day timeframe - in the case of the higher-reaction GIF the usual run-up time to a deployment, i.e. a full mobilization. MCCE can also organize additional sealift and cargo transport assets for its members through commercial charter.
Without using MCCE, the GIF has access to up to 5 sealift ships through the ARK project, a joint initiative with Denmark; these ships are normally contributed to MCCE, but are primarily intended for German and Danish support. The GIF can also draw on a rather limited number of smaller supply ships from the Bundeswehr's Support Forces.
-----
As Air Forces go, the RDM has a numerical advantage, but - for the short- to medium-term - no real capacities advantage. The RDM currently employs around 100 F-16AM/BM, distributed in three multirole and one fighter/QRA squadron. This is to be replaced by some 85 F-35A - or other 4.5th/5th-gen aircraft - likely in similar distribution. The GIF takes a modular approach, able to rely on a certain percentage from each Luftwaffe combat wing; by current percentage numbers, the GIF can assign some 70 aircraft, mostly Eurofighter Typhoon, distributed into one fighter and two squadron-sized strike modules, with a number of Tornados and Eurohawk UAVs for Recce and SEAD tasks where necessary. By next decade, both forces will have fully introduced and will be able to utilize air-launched cruise missiles in strategic strike missions. The approach of the GIF, assigning a percentage from all Luftwaffe wings, ensures that the GIF will in theory literally always be able to rely on all these aircraft being combat-capable, with instant replacement of attrition - this mitigates the numerical advantage of the RDM of course.
As tanker/transport assets go, the ball is clearly with the GIF. Either force will employ 2 larger multirole tanker/transport aircraft; KDC-10 for the RDM, A310 MRTT for the GIF. The GIF, in addition to that, would typically be able to rely on at least 5 A400M configured as tankers. As transport assets go, the GIF adds at least another 15 A400M in pure transport role to that, while the RDM will only have 4 C-130H. Again the GIF can rely on attrition replacement and support from the respective Luftwaffe wings.
Both nations are part of international initiatives intended to provide further airlift capacity; in the case of the GIF, this would be SALIS, in the case of the RDM, both SALIS and NATO SAC. SALIS could provide either force with up to 6 An-124-100, NATO SAC could provide the RDM with 3 C-17 in addition to that; in both cases, the number of flight hours available to the RDM and GIF as part of these initiatives would be limited.
Both forces have access to a limited number of ex-commercial passenger/cargo aircraft to move troops.
One untouched subjects are aviation support assets, something i'm not firm with either. One notable difference in that regard would be for example that the RDM only operates a single NATO Deployable Air Control Center, while the GIF will have two units of a similar role. Both forces of course have the necessary maintenance, support and force protection assets to support their air assets and air bases. Both forces currently have access to NATO Nuclear Sharing, with a USAFE MUNSS assigned for this purpose; both contingents are stationed in Germany (Büchel and Spangdahlem respectively), and rather unlikely to be retained for the medium-term future. Both forces have access to AEW&C assets in the form of NATO's joint E-3 AWACS squadron.
-----
So... i think i'll finish this here. Nope, no summary, no conclusions drawn by me. Take it for what it is, a pure write-up. Perhaps a source for some of your own thoughts about either structure, or their contrast?
Comments and especially corrections of course very welcome.
edit: MCCE, AWACS and some minor points added.
edit2: a few details modified.
Last edited: