Seeing the very recent post about the Streak Eagle I got an idéa in my head. I didn't ask for it, and it is late in the night (maybe that's why), so I will just spit it out here and go back to bed.

Add a snipe engine or two to the War Eagle.

Here are the options:
Add a dorsal superstructure from the bridge to the impulse engines to mount a combined fin/engine nacelle. (A lá late models spine fairing F-16)
This would increase internal volume slightly.
One or two engines? Well, if one wanted to add two, which is most likely, would make the conversion more worthwhile, the look would be similar to the unique appearance of the Tupolev Tu-22 "Blinder".

Second, if the original hull structure doesn't support solution one, or if you want a cheaper option, then hang one snipe engine under each wing. (The wing attachment point could support the heavier engines of the KE after all.)

While the second configuration would not have the added dorsal superstructure of the other version. Nothing would prevent a mix of the #1 and #2.
It is quite possible they converted a few to configuration one, then switched to the second and lastly added extra volume by adopting the dorsal superstructure from #1.

These types would most likely have plasma Fs in the added engines. FP arc for the pl-F on type #1 is possible. LP/RP is certainly required on #2 because the engines position under the wings restrict the firing arcs.

Note: I haven't kept up with developments in SFB and this is quite likely NOT an original idea.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 03:20 pm: Edit

For comparison's sake, there is a set of four "Black Eagle" series conversions presented in Captain's Log #49, showing would-be Early Years conversions of captured sublight Romulan hulls, in the event of a Klingon conquest of the pre-Smarba Romulans.

Notably, the Black Vulture (R3.A22) has three warp engines. The Klingons of the era were unable to design warp engines powerful enough for a 2-engine setup, such as on the "Shadow of the Eagle" Y-Vulture (R4J.23) seen in Module R4J; instead, they went with three engines, of the type seen on the C4 early dreadnought. However, this third warp engine would have had to be installed under the central hull; this would have prevented the ship from landing on planets, had it been able to do so ordinarily. (Indeed, the other three "Black Eagle" designs lose their own abilities to land on planets, though this is due to their respective uses of Klingon-type warp engines.)

In this instance, it might well be that, even if a third engine (of whichever size) could be installed here, it might also have to go "beneath" the central hull - and, in so doing, prevent the resulting ship from safely landing on planets.

Would this be an acceptable change, or might it be deemed as too much of a drawback, in terms of how useful such hulls could be for the Romulans at a tactical and/or operational level?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, February 06, 2025 - 03:44 pm: Edit

You forget just how the added warp fields would affect the cost of cloaking the ship. just saying

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 07, 2025 - 03:31 pm: Edit

On a side note: if you wanted an Eagle-series ship with three warp engines, perhaps one option could be to build a "heavy war destroyer" up from the BattleHawk-B (R4.934) in Captain's Log #51.

Such a ship might still be obliged to put the third warp nacelle "beneath" the central hull - and thus, lose the ability to land on planets. But for a "Shadow of the Eagle" timeline in which neither the SaberHawk nor a would-be Kestrel incarnation of the Klingon HF5 were made to exist, perhaps the Romulans might need to accept such a loss of functionality in order to field a viable HDW design.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, February 07, 2025 - 11:16 pm: Edit

Why not build up a Battlehawk, but use the same engines as the War Eagle?

BH has a movement cost of 1/2. What if the HDW version has a movement cost of 2/3?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 08, 2025 - 11:53 am: Edit

That might be one way to make further use of the 10-box War Eagle engines, once more base hulls have the 15-box King/Queen Eagle nacelles installed in their place. As you suggest, it would be possible to field a Speed-30 ship of Move Cost 2/3, at least depending on what kind of warp field dynamics are involved.

One question would be whether or not such a ship would be more of a "light cruiser", or a "heavy destroyer", in function? As in: does it count as a Size Class 3 hull, in which case it can safely mount a plasma-S torpedo luancher prior to the onset of X1-technology; or a Size Class 4 ship, in which case it cannot?

Another question would be whether or not such a ship could - or, indeed, should - be further upgraded, to match the warp output seen with most "war cruisers" or "heavy war destroyers" in the General War era. For example: would one need to install, say, a Snipe-B nacelle beneath the central hull of such a ship? This would bring the total warp engine output to 24 boxes - but, yet again, eliminate any ability to land safely on planets.

Although, it's quite likely that the challenges of making any sort of "HDW" option work with this type of hull is such that one would simply have to accept certain design limitations, compared to what would be possible with newer-generation starship designs (such as the SaberHawk, or with a would-be "HK5").

This might make for an interesting set of "design competitors" for the Romulan Senate to mull over - or, perhaps, for certain rival Great Houses to champion. Do they go with a 2-nacelle "HDW-esque" design with can only just move at Speed 30, but which can more readily serve alongside other Eagle series hulls due to being able to land safely on planets? Or, do they go with a three-nacelle design (either 10+10+4, or 8+8+8), that can match other empires' HDWs in terms of warp power, yet which cannot be landed safely on planetary surfaces?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, February 08, 2025 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Put the War Eagle engines on the hawk ships and you got X power on non x ships...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, February 09, 2025 - 08:28 pm: Edit

I will note that most of the Shadow of the Eagle histories will, in fact, have a SaberHawk design. And the exception will still have something that is not in the Eagle family of ships.

Honestly, making an HDW based on the Battlehawk would be anachronistic in every timeline. As such, i cant see a justification for one ever being made.

Tnat said, the BHB is a terrible ship. I'll have to see if i can do anything with it. It'll be significantly bloated, though. No "stretching" here. It'll just be outright bigger. Crap. Now I'm curious.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, February 10, 2025 - 03:10 pm: Edit

On the SaberHawk...

With the SkyHawk able to swap between variants pretty quickly...

Why did the Romulans bother with the SaberHawk?

(I mean, beyond a prototype or two)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 - 10:08 am: Edit

Because if they didn't, the Romulan-stans would have had a cow on missing out on the entire class.

Oh, in-game? I dunno. You raise a reasonable objection. However, true to real life, lots of expensive, unnecessary products have been made when there is a perfectly serviceable, cheaper solution already present. It's just a "people" thing.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 - 12:16 pm: Edit

OK, if you don't mind, I want to get back to the BH-HDW for a bit ...

OK, looking at it, things aren't cut-n-dried because the BHB is weird. So ...

To make an HDW you typically add the following to the base HDW:
- Add four hull.
- Add four APR*.
- Add four NWO.
- Add two shuttles with ready racks.
- Add two OPT-RA.
- Add a frigate engine.

We can do that to the BHB, but things get weird. First, unlike most DWs, the BHB only has 16 warp, not 18. Add in that the FF (Snipe) has tiny engines. So, if you just add a Snipe engine to the BHB, you only get 20 power total instead of 24. You also get two more shuttles than a traditional HDW. And, you get a pretty surprisingly powerful set of weapons. So ... it's pretty interesting.

What I'm thinking of doing is this:
- Add the SNB engine, including the plasma and phaser.
- Delete the original Pl-F (so they basically move it to the engine).
- Do everything else straight.

This will end up with a power-starved ship, but that is par for the course with this hull. Plus, it will be markedly different from other HDWs, thus making it interesting. That's where my head is at on this ship. Does that sound interesting?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 - 12:54 pm: Edit

I like this is precisely because it isn't as good as a "normal" HDW. In addition to being smaller, it's based on an obsolescent design and as such should still have limitatioms compared to HDWs based on more modern hulls.


I feel the same way about the KEX and BHX, incidently. Despite the excellent shielding and that big X-tech Type-R torpedo, as a complete package the KEX is not, and in my opinion, should not be the equal of the FHX or even more powerful NHX. The basic hull was designed around more primitive technology and you can only do so much with upgrades. Eventually you have to design something new, to accomodate advances made since the older hull was designed.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 - 07:51 pm: Edit

We are talking about WE improvement ideas. The Romulans made a pact with the devil. The Klingon empire to gain warp technology. They bought old outdated worn-out ships. To give them a warp powered force. Then built ships inspired by those same ships. The Hawk classes.

They did add warp power to their old designs. War bird to War eagle and then the King Eagle. They did not redesign the ship just added to it.

Redesign the WE. Build a whole new ship. Use the basic hull outline of course. The ability to land on planets. First remove the Armor. New ships have shields not armor. Two better warp engines and construction. The ship is 2/3 move cost. The 10 box warp engines would then give 20 warp speed 30 possible. 6 imp old not needed 4 are 3 would be fine. Need more power add a couple of APR. Same internal layout as the WE. weapons as the WE. 4 phaser-1 2ph-3 as the R refit. Now could the lighter built hull use a Plasma R? are would it be a G torp FA upgradable to a S. With 2 Plasma F as the Sparrow hawk class ships. Maybe both types to be used with 1 R and 2 with the S/Fs. Same cloak cost as the WE. Sheilds same all-around defense.

Now you could add another deck. Add an emr and aux bridge. Four more hull. A 360 phaser 1 and a second tractor. More online with the internals of the sparrow hawk class. How ever I would think that would remove the internal bracing needed for a R torp.

just some thoughts...

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Economically only improvements to the Eagle series makes sense, not a total re-design. Of course, a conjectural design is interesting to consider, but then maybe in another thread.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, February 12, 2025 - 10:53 am: Edit

The most advanced designs you are going to see on an Eagle series hull has probably already been printed. Most are scattered about, and the rest (meaning improvements of existing ships) are in Module R4J. Now, we might add in the weirdo missed* variant like the HDW or fast cruiser mentioned here and parallel topics, but that's just for funsies.

*They weren't actually missed. But, since they haven't been done, if anyone is interested in them, it can be fun to make them depending on what else is going on.

As for a replacement Eagle design, that is a whole new design that would be made new from whole cloth. Whether it keeps the shape of the WE or does something totally new (note: it won't look like anything from the movies or TNG), that would be a whole new development of a whole new fleet. ADB has stated multiple times that they aren't doing that. In fact, that is why the alternative histories in Module R4J were designed like they were: to make sure they always end up back at the Hawk series ships.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, February 12, 2025 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Believe me I agree with all of You. not something to be built. Was putting out something that I thought about a very long time ago. When the first new Hawk ships were first even put out.

I love the feel and how the old eagle ships play in the game. A WE, KE must cloak to win battles. They are designed that way. All of those old ships are.

Kestrels suck under Cloak. Some of the Hawk ships are well really good under cloak. The size class 4 ones any way. The bigger they get the more useless the cloak seems. Adding a warp engine to a WE that would I am sure increase the cloak cost too high to work right.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 12, 2025 - 11:17 pm: Edit

While not a factor for the non-X SaberHawk, its first-generation X-ship iteration is the only Hawk series Romulan X1-ship that is still modular; the likes of the SparrowHawk-X and SkyHawk-X must have their mission modules "hard-welded" to their respective hulls.

Granted, even those SaberHawk-Xs that were historically built tended to be set to a given initial configuration (to include as an X-fast patrol ship tender, in which role they could be used to go after Andromedan RTN nodes) and then stay as such for the remainder of their service lives. But even so, they could still be reconfigured relatively easily, should the Romulans have seen such a need.

Speaking of the RTN, the R-section data in Module X1R appears to indicate that anything smaller than a ship with a Move Cost of 2/3 is not worth assigning to this critical mission.

Plus, any ship assigned to look for RTN nodes has to have special sensors. Since the SkyHawk-C does not have any, it (or rather, any would-be "SkyHawk-CX" iteration) would not be usable for this role in any event.

Of course, the SparrowHawk-EX is arguably a superior ship for this role. Yet there are only so many Romulan X1-cruiser hulls to go around as of Y195, and a lot of Romulan space to try and clear from then on...

-----

I agree that the proposed HDW setup with a Snipe-B engine added, and a total of 20 warp boxes overall, is a more characterful approach.

I also agree that "moving" the F-torp to this nacelle, so as to free up more hull space for other things (something that would be at a premium when making such a conversion), is a good concept.

Although, I would still suggest placing this third engine below the central hull, despite this blocking the ship's ability to land on planets.

-----

As a further aside: if someone really wanted a "Romulan" HDW that had 24 warp engine boxes, yet which also was able to land safely on planets, I might suggest an option from an alternative timeline...

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, February 13, 2025 - 09:32 pm: Edit

As a follow-up on the BH-HDW, it actually worked out pretty nicely!

I stretched the hull by adding two whole rows of boxes (plus an empty row) below the hull and batteries. I did not widen it. I pulled the bridge up to where the Pl-F was and wedged the boxes in sideways (the one "cheat" I made). I extended the hull into where the bridge used to be, doubling it in size. The two new rows contain the NWO, APR*, and provide the room for the OPT-RA. However, I pulled up the PRB and TRAN to allow the OPT-RA to drop to just above the IMP and between the SHTL. At the bottom I tacked in an unmodified SNB warp engine, which adds four center warp, a Pl-F (to replace the one deleted) and an extra Ph-3-RH.

Unlike most HDWs, its shields don't change and its SSDE tracks don't change, since they are all already at cruiser levels.

The ship has very low warp for its size (only 20), but can still theoretically manage speed 31, but has a decent weapons suite. I have no idea how well it would perform, but it is at least an interesting ship. Hopefully it will be worthwhile enough for at least a Newsletter.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 14, 2025 - 01:37 pm: Edit

One other note:

The BattleHawk-X in Module X1R is based on the "standard" BattleHawk, not the BattleHawk-B. While we don't yet know what a would-be "BattleHawk-BX" might look like, the current BHX has a pair of 9-box warp engines.

Meanwhile, the Snipe-X in Captain's Log #51 has a pair of 5-box warp engines.

So, if (big if, perhaps) there is no room for improvement, in terms of the warp engines on a would-be "BHBX" relative to those on the current BHX, that would leave a would-be X1-ship iteration of the above HDW setup with... 23 boxes of warp power.

But, if it was possible to give a would-be "BHBX", say, 10-box warp nacelles, this would still only leave a would-be HDWX iteration with 25 boxes of warp power.

For comparison's sake, the SaberHawk-X has 36 boxes of warp engine power - more than any other HDWX currently in print, so far as I am aware - while the Klingon HF5X has 32 warp engine boxes (as, presumably, would a "HK5X" have in turn).

Even so, as is the case for the non-X HDW proposed above, it would certainly make for a characterful X1-ship design...