But you would massively exceed the actual transfer rate of the energy into the material, so most of the energy would just keep going.
Correct. The beam of collimated X-rays would shine right through the top deck, and all the decks below it, down into the water underneath.
And each of those decks now suddenly has a circular area about the size of a large manhole cover that's just been turned into superheated plasma. Which would be kind of explody.
This assumes that the strike has been top-down, of course. If they fired at the first moment they had line-of-sight, it would likely come in at near-horizontal, just above the waterline. Worst case might be the carrier heading directly towards where the missile comes over the horizon, and getting a nuclear tunnel of ruin from the bow all the way through to the rear.
Might not sink it, but don't tell me that's not a mission-kill.
You're also suddenly changing the terms of your scenario from an array (like has been proposed for use in space against ABM warheads) to a single aimed laser.
If the array of lasers (because they would surround the nuke) are all aimed at the same target, they are effectively the same as one big laser.
To be honest, this is likely to damage a carrier less than an actual NuDet would and kind of begs the question of "if you're going nuclear, why not just go nuclear?"
Because of the Inverse Square Law.
I'm assuming that the carrier group has defensive systems that can detect, paint, and intercept any incoming warhead within a certain distance from the ships. Therefore the warhead has to detonate before an interception can take place.
So it needs to either be powerful enough to destroy carrier from that far out, or it needs to focus it's energy-yield in some way rather than just spread it out in a sphere.
Rough calculations based on the dimensions of a Nimitz-class carrier tell me that a nuke that detonated directly overhead would need to be only 450 meters up for just 1% of it's direct energy yield to the applied to the ship.
The laser system can deliver that energy from much further.
My previous scenario simply assumed a conventional conflict.
Given the size of an American supercarrier, nuclear devices seem the most sensible way to deliver enough punch against one of them.
But I can also think of non-nuclear scenarios.
And even if your satellite is a killstat armed with ortillery, the carrier's captain is more likely than not to know it, and his ships radar can find him the nearest storm-system that causes you more trouble than him.
How fast could they get there?
Are we to imagine the carrier fleeing at 30+ knots towards the clouded area, the captain and bridge crew knowing that it's only a matter of minutes before the carrier-killer satellite comes up over the horizon?
(Never mind that I actually described it being launched as needed, not being in orbit)
"Crap, we're not gonna make it! Captain, we're not gonna-"
"Stop that! We are going to make it!"
The ship reaches the overcast area. It's windy with some rain.
"We made it! They can't see us now!"
Suddenly a blindingly bright light stabs down in a diagonal line through the clouds, striking the sea about a kilometer from the carrier.
"What the-?"
"They lost us, but took a pot-shot anyway! Everybody hang onto something, that wave is
huge!"