Coil Guns

not an argument

Aero here, based on the speed these projectiles get up to, the idea of the air immediately around the projectile "combusting" is not so far fetched. At velocities above mach 5, vehicles begin to react chemically with the air they are traveling through.

From what I've read, the rail gun might ignite stuff suspended in the atmosphere (e.g. suspended dust), as well as parts of the atmosphere (probably carbon monoxide). But nothing about the oxygen itself combusting.

But what you're saying is that it really is like said and the projectile is really "burning" like a meteor does?

Okay smartass, what oxidizes oxygen in that circumstance?

Air friction heats it so much it starts to emit light.

This. look at the luminescence behind the projectile. That isn't some kind of propellant exploding out of a tube, it's a cone traveling behind the projectile and emminating from it. You can also see a shock wave in front curving around the nose.

that's not how it werks son

so they were never really meant to compete with traditional gunpowder based weapons
more like heavy artillery propulsion, and may I say spesss missiles
I can also see an applicability in non military launch systems

...

Coilguns?
No, not a chance.

Railguns, which operate by Lorentz Force, have a niche in being able to attain velocities higher than the roughly 6000 ft/s that chemical propulsion can attain.
The downside being the low density of energy storage, and thus low portability.

tl;dr: Good old fashioned bangsticks are never going away.

Attached: 1442457387753.png (450x450, 340.76K)

Kinetic bombardment is only energetically viable from hyperbolic trajectories, and certainly not from low circular orbit.