Shipbucket

Heh, well it's always good to know

Well let me go back to square one:
Honestly the answer to this question is going to be based on whoever happens to be the best salesman on that particular day. Though IIRC S1850M is either an improved version of SMART-L or simply the Thales brand name for their particular APAR set (APAR is a broad classification of radar type, not a specific set or brand). Or maybe Sampson is the Thales brand name for their APAR set; either way the combinations you listed are both Thales and one or the other would be available.

As for the difference between AEGIS and the Thales sets, a lot of it is going to be dependent on what's politically viable - i.e. will the U.S. State Department clear SPY-1 for your country (and note that just like with SMART-L vs. S1850M/Sampson there's different sets and sizes/capability of SPY-1, from A to D at least). Thales, being a private, multi-national corporation isn't as tied to export restrictions which is why their systems are so popular beyond NATO partners and particularly so-called "third world nations" (note that there are in effect two definitions of that term in use - makes it extremely annoying when you have pedantic jackasses in need of having their balls kicked in on certain message boards who want to capitalize that to act like annoying asshole trolls). Thales also tends to design their stuff to be more export-friendly in the first place, meaning that they have various systems that are more adept to being "scalable" and retrofitted onto existing vessels, which is why you'll soon be seeing Australian and Korean vessels with Thales equipment while the "big Asiatic destroyers" as I like to call them stick with AEGIS (as they're based on a design that's in turn designed around AEGIS).
TimothyC already covered the major differences but once again it's ultimately going to come down to whether OTO-Melara or FMC have the better salespeople that day. The logistics train shouldn't be dramatically that different from each other - because from a logistics standpoint both weapons were intentionally designed to be compatible with each other (same ammo for example). Both were designed to replace the same weapon system, the Mk 42 5/54, which also uses the same ammo, so neither OTO nor FMC were in any particular hurry to disrupt the supply chain.

There are some things I need to point out: first of all I'm surprised if FMC still manufactures the 45/54 as it's been superceded by the 45/62 which has significant maintenance improvements and a not insignificant increase in firepower. I have yet to see OTO offer a 62-caliber 127mm naval gun, and frankly I'm not sold on the utility of having such a rapid-fire weapon - the 45/62 has a RoF of about a round every two seconds and you are not going to be using a 127mm weapon to engage supersonic or trans-sonic targets, I don't care what OTO tries to say otherwise.
If you ignore that final stipulation then you have two choices - as I've said the 5/38 was the best and perhaps the most "true" dual-purpose gun available even during the war, and I'm not sure what you have against it. Other than that you're stuck with the 3-inch/50-caliber which was later adapted into an effective AA-only weapon postwar.

As for the most effective modern-CIWS...I will simply need a lot more detail about your intended vessel before I can give an opinion.

SAMPSON is a two-face rotating set, and thus has a lower refresh rate than APAR or SPY-1.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

the reason i asked about both versions of mark 45 was because I wasnt only thinking about now but also years ago when it and the Oto melara 127/54 i should have been more clear and i was under the impression that the Australians were building Aegis ships(is this incorrect and or did i mis understand you klagldsf)
also i agree about the 5/38 100 percent i was curious however if there were any other options that were equal that i had not discovered
for the radars from what i read it seemed like APAR and Smart-L was a little better than aegis but i guess i was incorrectly informed and that Sampson could track (i think it was track) many more targets than the others a
Many thanx to everyone for the input
also i completley understand for the CIWS question i actually agree it is neccessary

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Hobart will have SPY-1 but the ANZACs are being upgraded with some small Thales set. Just like how the Koreans have one of those Big Asiatic Destroyers I mentioned (I guess you can lump the Hobarts in that group too) in the form of King Seogoung the Whatever with SPY-1 but a few of their older destroyers will be upgraded with SMART-L.
It's the best option but it's not the only option. Other posters have gone through probably the most comprehensive list you're gonna get. What you will ultimately choose will not only be based on whether or not you want the best available, but how realistically you want to play the choices that would be available. That means it's going to come down to how you will choose to draw the ship. Same with whatever radar you go with.

ohh i thought that the anzacs were being upgraded with/are upgraded with the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT from CEA technoligies unlesss are they owned by thales and or i shouldnt be trusting the good old wiki
for korea are u refering to the KDX-2 class or Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyer
and yes u are right for the gun

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Oh, well, yeah, CEA then, whoever they are.

lol ok my next question is this (sorry for so many but this is why i made i made such a thread and if anyone else would like to post there questions in here feel free)
If you are desgning a treaty crusier for 8in guns what nation build the best between the UK France the United States (range wise my research said france and who built the best 5.9in, 6in, or 6.1 in guns in general any answers or discussion is much appreciated as always

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

This question heavily implies that you're going to copy a nation's design aesthetic rather than design along your own lines. Which is just fine (hell I do it all the time), but if you'd simply asked that sooner I could've pointed out a shortcut along the lines of "whatever they do, you do."

It's also a bit of an unfair question because each nation built the best cruiser they could to their specific mission goals. But...generally, the USN cruisers were far ahead of nearly anybody else's (though it's unfair to call out the French since they hardly built the numbers of heavy cruisers the USN or even RN did).

sorry should have been more clear i meant the main armament the 8in guns of the cruisers
but i do beliebe the French Algiers class was one of the better

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

The cheapest and quickest way to measure gun tubes is more inches + longer caliber = better rifle. That's as quick and dirty as it can get and there are a few factors that weigh in too.