Lasers? Railguns? Sorry, too broke.

[11B4V]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

2nd ammend issue.

[jimmy olsen]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

2nd ammend issue.

Hunting with a railgun is illegal in Wisconsin.

[11B4V]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

2nd ammend issue.

Hunting with a railgun is illegal in Wisconsin.

Ive never read or heard of that BS

[grumbler]

the Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy

Classy, Mr. Reporter.  Classy.

I think you are mistaking a bit of tongue-in-cheek for something more serious.  The writer has issues with logic, but I liked the bit you quoted. 

You want to bitch about classless adjectives in the report, bitch about 

a summary released by the committee gleefully reports.

(my bold)  There is no glee in the report at all, and implying that there is is both unprofessional and dishonest.  The author is trying to create antagonism where none exists, for reasons that escape me.

The budget committee, in times of budget constraints, chopped the two programs they thought had the least chance of ever being fielded.  You can argue that decision, but you cannot (honestly) argue that the report is "gleeful" about the decision, nor can you argue (given the host of other laser programs still funded) that "The directed energy and electromagnetic weapons intended to protect the surface ships of the future" have been "Terminated."

Of course, we are talking here about someone who gives himself the handle of "attackerman" and posts in a blog called "Danger Room," so we shouldn't expect a very adult start to the discussion.

[jimmy olsen]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

2nd ammend issue.

Hunting with a railgun is illegal in Wisconsin.

Ive never read or heard of that BS

I posted the news before the fall of the old forum.

[The Minsky Moment]

A reactor can provide a lot of sustained power, but not enough instantaneous power.  You'd need to store the power.  I know there has been some talk of some kind of flywheel system to do that, because there has been talk of maybe needing two such systems to avoid Coriolis effect, but I don't know if that's just geek speculation or a real concern.  All I know is that reactors are better for things like propulsion than things like powering lasers.  Reactors take time to build up for greater power demands.

A new ship and reactor design wouldn't be a big hurdle - naval reactors has made steady progress while researching for improved submarine reactors.

I would figure that if you can put a reactor onto a sub, it shoudn't be that tough to fit one on a destroyer.

The storage issue is a important one for civilian applications as well; e.g. generation of power through renewable sources like wind where peak generation may not always coincide with peak demand.  Perhaps some kind of public-private research effort is in order.

[viper37]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

gun control is way too strict in the US, you can't even have your own personal railgun

[Razgovory]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

Well, not yet.

[Tonitrus]

I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack.

Because there's no private market for rail guns. 

Well, not yet.

The Ahnold film "Eraser" tells me there is a rather lively market for railguns.