The so-called “Trump-class battleship” isn’t really about Trump, and it isn’t really a battleship.It’s about something the U.S. Navy quietly walked away from years ago:The railgun.In this video, I break down why the Navy didn’t abandon railguns because they failed, but because they didn’t fit modern naval doctrine.By the time the program slowed down, railguns had already demonstrated: Hypersonic muzzle velocities Non-explosive kinetic kill mechanisms Per-shot costs measured in tens of thousands, not millions That last part matters — a lot.Missiles are incredible weapons, but they are expensive, logistically fragile, and doctrinally dominant. Once you fire one, it’s gone. A railgun fires a chunk of metal, over and over, with devastating penetration and cost asymmetry that missiles can’t match.So why did the Navy shelve it?Because railguns don’t fit: Missile-centric doctrine Procurement incentives PowerPoint-friendly kill chainsAnd that’s where this new ship concept gets interesting.A large, power-rich surface combatant creates political and doctrinal cover for weapons that need: Massive electrical power Thermal capacity Deep magazines Sustained firesIn other words, a railgun finally has a home again.This isn’t about nostalgia, sci-fi, or battleships making a comeback.It’s about logistics, cost, and staying in the fight.And if missiles keep getting more expensive while wars keep getting longer, the Navy may have to rethink some very uncomfortable assumptions.