I quote the words of the great martial artist Bruce Lee:
“Board’s dont hit back”.
Neither do punching bags, and yet people keep on hitting them.
Again, it was a training exercise, not a simulation. The latter predicts results, the former doesn’t.
No, it was a propaganda exercise, and a laughable one at that.
Sure, but locating, tracking and targeting an airborne supersonic missile is very different than doing the same for a speedboat on the ocean.
I would think that it would be easier to target a slower moving boat.
Unless the software is written to exclude things below a certain speed, or speed/altitude combo. If it was designed with missile defense only in mind, that is a possibility.
Radar does this to ignore false positives from birds; however, that means it doesn’t pick up hot air balloons either.
Someone upthread posted that the weapon has been revised to depress lower and have more ammo.
Which still doesn’t affect the concern that the system might not be designed to target relatively slow moving boats at all (in contrast to fast moving airplanes and missiles). Infamously, the Bismark’s Anti Aircraft batteries were unable to tag the Fleet Air Arm’s Swordfish torpedo bombers because the guns and their targeting computers lacked the capability to effectively track such slow moving targets (the Swordfish, famously, was a fabric-skinned biplane that saw service with the Brits throughout World War II despite numerous more modern designs being introduced).
In addition to the system being possibly designed to filter out potential false positives (so as not to waste ammo fragging seagulls when there are enemy missiles inbound), a boat in the water may not stand out on radar nearly as well as a missile in the air, due to the whole terrain masking effect.
Dial it back. Your point can be easily made without resorting to incivility. It tends to derail the conversation.
That goes for any reply back to him as well.
No warning issued.
FWIW, the Wikipedia article on the Phalanx said part of the upgrades for engaging surface targets included adding an IR sensor. Which makes a ton of sense - IR would be a lot more useful than radar for detecting/isolating small boats from wavetops.
Yes, but such small boats tend to be hard to distinguish from large wavetops, so they tend to disappear into the background clutter on the radar screen.
The Infra red sensor mentioned above should take care of that. 
Folks, if there’s a new version of a CIWS out which is designed to engage small boats up close, then it’s designed to engage small boats up close.
We’re not going to discover some gotcha here that the engineers on the project forgot to think of. Like sea state clutter or low radar reflectivity of inflatable boats or limited downward field of regard or whatever.
To be sure, the DoD often buys weapons that are less effective than the YouTube gun-camera-porn crowd likes to exult over. But if they say it can effectively engage small boats, it can do so.
What if the small boats have the sun on their backs?
Even better, why not just shield themselves behind ordinary commercial shipping? Anymore wars will be fought in some very busy sea lanes.
I think small boats only work in port or near-coast situations like the USS Cole attack. Out in big blue open water, with the carrier escorts and no non-American ships allowed to get close to the carrier? Hard.
I understand that the crew has been trained to drop bowling balls into the boats, and smash through the hulls.
I really liked the wooden PT boats of WW2. Also their German equivalent the E-boats.
Both boats would often sneak in and take out shipping.
If I was a foreign power wanting to take on the US Navy I would invest in alot of small, stealthy missile and torpedo boats.
And be sure that the crew insurance was paid up.
That might be the sort of thing that would work once. Were I a lookout after the USS Cole, I’d want to sink a party barge that came close.