On Zeus, kayak Suez. No?
Are there cruise missles that travel at mach 6? and does china have them? I’m not doubting you, but I am legitimately curious. I haven’t done any current research on the topic. But last I remember most cruise missles in operation are subsonic. Tho the more I think about it, the less i realize I know for sure.
Also, while the flight deck is certainly wider than the hull (it’s not quite twice as wide), the hull is hardly skinny. It’s a bit of a trick of the angle that a lot of photos are taken at, where it’s easy to see the skinny bow but the full width of the hull is hidden by the flight deck or an offset angle. Directly from the front, it’s clear that there’s plenty of hull.
Some where between mach 2-3, possibly up to mach 4. China most likely has them, usually they were at least in the beginning, a modified manned aircraft, that simply removed the flight deck and plopped a warhead or fuel tank inside.
Doctrine said they were supposed to be salvoed in great numbers, as while fast, tend to maintain a straight line. With the introduction of the Aegis Cruisers with the VLS cells, the actual value of the missile is suspect.
Cruise missiles in general, the speed is proportional to range and warhead. The US version, there is a thousand mile difference in range, between a 500lb conventional warhead and a nuke. I don’t have any information on what the range of the storm shadow is.
Declan
Well it’s not really about weight it’s about stability. Plenty of 100,000 tonnne displacement ships have capsized, it’s a question of where the weight is.
Oops! I failed to see that link (re:Chinese mach6 cruise missles) before I posted. I blame my stupid job for distracting me. I promise to shirk my duties here at work and give The Dope my full attention from here on out. :smack:
That Business Insider story didn’t give any information beyond a simple claim that China is researching Mach 6 cruise missile technology. Several countries are.
But research and anything approaching a capability are quite different. The effort to develop hypersonic air-breathing vehicles (which to my mind defines a Mach 5+ cruise missile) is very tough. Here is where the US stands:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html
We have built a couple of very advanced test vehicles capable of sustained (sustained is measured in seconds) hypersonic flight. And that is the best the US can do. I am certain China can’t do that well, much less better.
Note the issue is air-breathing (cruise). A hypersonic missile is obviously possible-every space launch does it and many military missiles go that fast. But they aren’t air breathing and have very limited ranges. Note even space launches don’t have that much range-only about 100 miles and that is straight up. 
What China and Russia are developing (have developed) are missiles that launch hypersonic warheads at ships. These are Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs). They pose a serious threat to aircraft carriers. They aren’t cruise missiles of course. They lob re-entry vehicles through space toward a predefined target. The trick for the launcher is to know exactly where the target is before launch and to equip the warhead with active guidance systems. The trick for the target is to not be there when the warhead arrives and to be able to jam the active guidance. Kind of like how this stuff has been going on since guns have been invented. I try to shoot you and you try to make me miss.
Bad Marion!
How about just politely ask you not to shoot me?
No surprise those are the pics posted to social media.
The deck still overhangs by a good 50% or more on each side.
To over simplify
There is a relationship between hull length and with that will determine the speed of a ship. I don’t remember the exact formula. Building a ship wider will lower its top speed.
So the hull is designed and the roof is added.
By long standing tradition, a carrier should be able to outrun any ship with firepower greater than 5-inch guns.
In my day, for flight operations, it was 25 knots of relative wind, 5 degrees to port, over the flight deck. If there was no wind, we could make our own by going 25 knots which I recall was all engines ahead Full, not Flank.
I do not know as a fact what the top speed of the Enterprise was, other than “in excess of 33 knots”. There was a plaque mounted on the bulkhead by the helm and leehelm with bell & shaft rotation to order for a given speed: as an example (likely not correct) for 25 knots, the order would be “Lee helmsman, all engines ahead Full, indicate 123 revolutions for 25 knots.” I think the plaque stopped at 33 knots; I’ve no doubt that the Captain could order a faster speed in an emergency situation.
(We did think the Enterprise would be faster off the line than a Nimitz-Class because we could generate steam quicker, having 8 reactors vs 2.)
Cite for “plenty”?
bingo! And thanks for the bit about the angled runway; I’d always wondered.
Regarding stability, there are 2 (static) ways: wide hull with flat bottom, or deep keel with weight at the bottom (ballast). Wide-flat isn’t very good for rough seas.
Where I went to college the training ship was an old WWII AKA. It was a wide hulled flat bottom shallow bottom ship. In rough seas it was a miserable ride. If we were going straight into the waves it bounced and if we were at any angle to the waves it rode like a cork screw and slipped off the back of the wave then on the other side slipped of the face.
Carriers are stress tested in high speed turns, I assume if there was something off with the ship’s balance, it would show up then.
Quite a sight to see someone drifting a carrier 
I stumbled upon the War is Boring blog on Medium.com while work was boring.
They have a few opinion articles on carriers as a waste and as a big target for submarines.
Oh, on wind from the side:
Again, for launching and landing planes the carrier will be pointed into the wind. Even if the big overhanging deck caught a lot of crosswind, the reduced stability wouldn’t affect operations, only crew comfort.
(Is there ever a situation where there are strong winds orthogonal to strong waves?)
Waves caused by seismic events travel radially from the point of origin regardless of wind.
Then again, at the point of origin or on the open sea they’re not that noticeable because the wavelength of a seismic wave is so huge (to the tune of hundreds of kilometers) - it’s when the undulating wave starts hitting the bottom and the wavelength shortens and amplifies as a result that things get real interesting, real fast. And I don’t think carriers typically operate that close to shore.