Worth noting that this line is now out of date. Allegedly they've been tested in Yemen recently [1].
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/houthi-missile-close-us-wars...
Maybe 2) is more of a judgement call since a few bullet holes is probably preferential to the alternative.
At ranges that close... you really want a "deconstruct anything in the air" device, not a "consider what you're about to hit" device.
Which I'd imagine has been designer pushback on complicating it and going that route.
Safety through deciding what mode to set it in; not through leaving it alone and forgetting about it.
Seems a bit like Star Trek - “Their shields go down for a split second when they fire”. Maybe the system goes dark for a second to avoid shooting down outgoing items? Syncing the shields might make this better (or expose other weaknesses?)
Say it's a YJ-83 clone, so around mach 1.4 terminal velocity (476 m/s).
Phalanx tracks at 10km, engages at around 4km.
So it has ~8.4 seconds of engagement time to try to destroy the incoming missile.
... And that's a relatively slow modern target. A P-800 gets up to mach 2.4. BrahMos is mach 3?
I'd guess the Navy would generally rather keep CIWSs on a hair trigger, and just space their ships further apart in combat situations.
And afaik, most of the CIWSs have been removed in favor of RAM, since the gun-limited engagement ranges don't make much sense anymore.
You may be thinking of Aegis, the integrated combat control system. We don’t yet know why the Gravely was unable to intercept the missile further out. Could have been human error, could have been a sea skimmer getting too close before being detected. To date, Aegis has been extremely effective against ballistic missiles and old cruise missiles. But given enough time an enemy can test your potential weak spots.