Way back when the Corps was still replacing the good old 106 RCL with the TOW we underwent some TOW training. If I remember correctly (and this was with the earliest versions) the TOW could fire over water but range was reduced to around 1,800 meters if both launcher and target were on the water. This was because of the increased capacitive coupling between the wires when the wires were submerged over a long distance. The higher the target or launcher are above the water the greater the range because less wire was submerged during flight.

I hadn't thought that anybody would interpret my mention of TOW in a literal sense.  I was simply attempting to illustrate there are many different types of weaps out there which *could* be useful for defending a CGN but they aren't necessary for the reasons GF had stated.  It had been my idea to choke off an escalating "we need something with more oomph than a mere .50, let's bring back hull casements" thread creep.  That was all.  FWIW it may not be the best of ideas to shoot Phalanx in a harbor filled with friendlies and fuelies ;>)

v^2