Prince Consort, Ocean, and Caledonia were built to a common design and are today known as the Prince Consort class,[1] though contemporaries knew them as the Caledonia class.[2]Royal Oak was their half-sister.
Genesis
The Bulwark class of nine 91-gun two-decker steam line-of-battle ships were laid down between March 1859 and October 1860 (a further three were ordered, but never laid down, and eventually cancelled in 1863). Their dimensions were the same as HMSDuncan (101 guns), but had a new timbering plan to suit the smaller armament. The reduction in armament was intended to improve the efficiency of the guns.[3]Bulwark and Robust were suspended in March 1861 in an advanced state of construction and were eventually broken up in March 1873 and August 1872 respectively.[3] The remaining seven ships of the Bulwark class were less complete state and were converted into 'ironclad frigates'. Of these Triumph (later renamed Prince Consort), Ocean, and Caledonia were converted to 'broadside ironclads' with 1,000 nhp engines. Royal Oak had a similar conversion but with the original 800 nhp engine. Royal Alfred, Zealous and Repulse were later converted into 'central battery ships'.[4]
Reasons for the conversion programme
When the first British ironclads were conceived, the Surveyor (Rear Admiral Sir Baldwin Wake Walker) said, "They must be regarded as an addition to our force, as a balance to those of France, and not as calculated to supersede any existing class of ship; indeed no prudent man would, at present, consider it safe to risk up the performance of ships of this novel character, the naval Supremacy of Great Britain."[5] For this reason, the Royal Navy continued to lay down and complete steam two-deckers and three-deckers.[6] However, in 1861, it was clear that Britain was falling behind in ironclads laid down (see table below).[7] The ten French ironclads laid down in 1861 were the start of the French programme of 1860, which was intended over a number of years to produce: 20 sea-going ironclads for the active fleet, 10 sea-going ironclads for the reserve fleet, and 11 floating batteries.[8]
Year
Cumulative Sea-Going Ironclads Laid Down or Commenced Conversion[9]
The British response to the French programme was taken in a number of steps.
On 28 September 1860, the Board of Admiralty decided to order three new iron-hulled ironclads: one large - Achilles, and two medium-size - Hector and Valiant. Though there was still great uncertainty as to the value of ironclads, and the Controller[11] was directed to report as to their "fitness for use as transports or other duties in case it should be deemed advisable at any time to strip off their armour plates."[12]
Following a report from the British naval attaché in Paris regarding the progress of the French 1860 programme, the Naval members of the Board asked for the provision of ten new sea-going ironclads and the adaptation of ten or more existing steam line of battleships for armour protection with a total outlay of £3,000,000.[14]
The Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, advocated cutting down and armouring the last sailing battleships rather than reducing the number of steam line of battleships.[15] (In 1861, the fleet of steam line of battleships were extremely modern, and comprised the main battle strength of the Royal Navy.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Ewart Gladstone, had decided in November 1859 that ironclads must be the vessels of the future.[16] In early 1861, he was willing to accept a bigger appropriation for armoured ships if it could be offset by reduction in expenditure on wooden line of battleships. Gladstone suggested that the navy build wooden-hulled ironclads like the French.[14]
In March 1861, construction of the Bulwark-class two-decker steam line of battleships was suspended.[3] Then in May 1861 it was decided to convert the five least complete ships of the Bulwark class into ironclads.[17] It was also decided to lay down three new very large iron-hulled ironclads, which became the Minotaur, Agincourt, and Northumberland.
Writing in December 1866, the Controller wrote: "The Caledonia and Ocean were ships of the line, of the largest class of two-deckers, in a certain state of advancement when in the Spring of 1861 I was appointed to the Controller’s office. The proposals I made in May 1861, to the Board, to convert these ships and three others into what they are now, was accepted, and I beg leave to call their Lordships’ attention to the concluding paragraphs of those submissions which in substance were as follows - "'No doubt is entertained that the ship would be a sufficiently good sea boat to go to the Mediterranean, if required, and that her speed would be at least as great as that estimated (12.4 knots)' - 'but while proposing this mode of action I beg leave to observe that such ships will, in my opinion, be in every way inferior to ships of the Achilles class with those modifications which we propose to make in her Plating, but I have no hesitation in making these proposals, not as the wisest, and not as the safest way of meeting the exigencies of the case, but because I am led to believe that other considerations make this plan the only practicable one.' "I certainly appeal with confidence to the Admiral’s reports as a proof that my expectation and those I held out to their Lordships in proposing these ships have been realized."[18]
Conversion
"The two-decked wooden ship which were turned into armoured frigates had their sides cut down considerably, and the main deck and its battery removed; while the armour, although about equal in weight to the parts removed, is not as high above water. the iron-clad is, therefore, less top-heavy than the wooden ship was previously to be converted; in other words the conversion has the effect of bringing down the centre of gravity of the ship."[19]
As part of the conversion they were lengthened by 21 feet. "The object of lengthening was to provide more space for an armament mounted entirely on one deck except for chase guns. Such extensions are carried out by a process well recognised in naval architecture; which is quote possible at any stage in the building of a ship [or afterwards], not by adding to the extremities, but in cutting her in two at the point of greatest beam and separating the halves sufficiently to insert a new section between them. This is usually done by erecting a launching cradle round the stern half, moving it down the slipways on the cradle as far as required and building up the gap. In such fashion the Prince Consort, Caledonia and Ocean (as well as the Royal Alfred and Royal Oak) were each drawn out 23 feet when already partially on the frame... But as the midship portion of a hull is always the part subjected to the greatest sagging and hogging strains in a head or following sea, special care is necessary to ensure the inserted section is sufficiently strongly built in; particularly if it has to bear the burden of the engines as it did in the Prince Consort class. Exceptionally stout timbering was therefore used for the purpose in those ships; even with that their central structure sometimes exhibit signs of stress giving rise to trouble in a minor degree."[20] "Although the added central section had a full bilge throughout, their floors rose in the old fashion forward and aft, because their underwater lines had taken shape before conversion was ordered and could not be altered without an almost entire rebuilding of the ship. This reduced the carrying capacity of the hull compared with that of a full bodied vessel such as the Bellerophon; but retained a good model for easy movement and contributed to their excellent steering qualities alike under steam and sail."[20]
The bows of the Bulwark class were of the normal knee-shape for wooden warships. When they were converted to ironclads, the Prince Consorts and the Royal Oak were completed with stems approaching the upright above water, and this style, which was so much decried at first, had by the late-1860s won aesthetic approval. "The bow has been modified in order to dispense with overhanging weight, to increase its fitness to cleave and surmount waves, and to adapt it for ramming purposes."[21] Though they did not have underwater rams.
"The stern has been modified in order to give protection to the rudder-head, to deflect raking shot, and to render it more fit to receive easily the blows of following waves.""[21] "Aft the overhang of the counter was narrowed to an oval termination foreshadowing what became the normal battleship type of stern thirty years later, except that the counter was above water instead of below. As these were the first vessels with that novel design of stern they were often called 'double-enders' until the design became so common as to suggest no peculiarity."[20] "The upper parts of the wooden rudder... showed above water, and the rudder was of the old narrow unbalanced type with a bronze neck socket to receive an iron double-tillered norman head."[20]
As wooden-hulled ships the Prince Consorts and the Royal Oak lacked the double bottom and water-tight bulkheads given to iron-hulled vessels. However, at the time people did not consider these things necessary for wooden ships, whose sides and bottoms were very thick, and for which there was much experience. With an iron-hulled ship the "bottom is without any doubt very thin and liable to penetration by a rock or any other hard substance; but the danger resulting from penetration is very greatly reduced by the adoption of a proper number of watertight divisions or bulkheads in the ship's hold, while it may be almost got rid of by the cellular bottom, now given to all our iron-clads, which prevents the entrance of water into the hold even when the outer plating is penetrated."[22] It should be added that before the introduction of the bracket-frame system with the Bellerophon, double-bottoms on British iron-hulled iron-clads were very partial.[23]
Armour
"In our earlier iron-clads the protection is only partial, extending over a portion of the length of the broadside. No better example of this system can be chosen than the Warrior. Her length is 380 feet, and the armoured portion is only 213 feet in length, the extremities of the ship being left entirely unprotected... The rudder head and steering apparatus are left entirely unprotected. This system of partial protection is also adopted in the Black Prince, Defence, and Resistance; but the desire to increase the amount of protection led to the introduction into the Hector and Valiant of a modification of the Warrior's disposition of armour. This modification consisted in adding a belt of plating, extending from the upper to the main decks, before and abaft the main portion of the broadside armour, which was arranged similarly to Warrior's. The main deck, on which the guns are fought, is thus protected throughout the entire length, but the extremities 'between wind and water' are quite as unprotected as those on the Warrior".[24]
"Both these plans of disposing the armour were afterwards considered unsatisfactory, and resort was had in the Minotaur class, and in the converted ships of the Caledonia class, to the system of which had been introduced into the construction of the floating batteries built during the Crimean war, by means of which what is known as 'complete protection' is secured. Throughout the length the armour extends from the upper deck down to about 6 feet below the waterline... The principal advantages possessed by this disposition of the armour over that of the Warrior are that the extremities of the ship, especially on the parts near the water-line, are iron-cased, and that the protected guns can be ranged along the length of the broadside instead of being concentrated in a central battery. There are, however, the accompanying disadvantages of having bow and stern heavily burdened, and of the resulting increase in the total weight of armour. For wood-built iron-clads this plan has the additional advantage of protecting the upper works throughout the length from the destructive effects of shells. The French ships are, for the most part plated in this manner".[25]
"In 1861 many verbal discussions took place between myself [the Controller] and the constructors of the day, as to the cause of the excessive rolling of our ships, when compared with similar French constructions. When I [the Controller] urged upon them the possibility of adding largely to the armour plating of the ships, and of not confining it, as had been done, in the Warrior and other ships, I was met with very great opposition, and my endeavours to get the five wooden ships wholly Armour-Plated were met by two reasons against doing so. One was, that extensive armour-plating must cause excessive rolling; and the other, that there were doubts of the stability of a ship wholly armour-plated. Now it turned out that the stability of these ships wholly armour-plated proved excessive, and, if their stability had been lessened, their rolling would have been diminished; but the Constructors of the Navy were not alone in their opinion."[26]
"In the wood ships the [4.5 inch thick] armour was bolted on outside the planking of an ordinary line-of-battle ship, being consequently backed by about 30 inches of timbering and planking." This compared with 4.5-inch (110mm) armour backed by 18 inches (460mm) of teak for the Warrior class, Defence class, Achilles and the Hector class, and 5.5in (140mm) armour backed by 9in (230mm) of teak for the Minotaur class.[27]
Rolling
In the 1860s rolling was measured as the sum of the angles to port and to starboard. "Admiral Dacres Report for 1864 [on the Channel Squadron] shows that on the four days when all the ships were together, the means of the extreme rolls recorded were as follow: Hector, 10 degrees; Warrior and Defence, 10.25; Black Prince, 11.05; Prince Consort, 11.75; and Edgar (wooden line-of-battle ship), 14.25. The Warrior's rolling was measured by a different instrument from that used on board the other ships, so that she cannot fairly be compared with them. This record is, however, of great interest, on account of the comparison it renders possible between the behaviour of the iron-clads and the wooden two-decker, the latter proving the heaviest roller in the squadron. In Admiral Yelverton's Report [on the Channel Squadron] for 1866, there are given examples of the comparative rolling of several of the iron-clads, obtained from three days' observations, of which the mean results are:- Achilles and Bellerophon, 6.6 degrees; Hector, 11.3; Ocean, 14.3; Lord Clyde, 16.1; Pallas, 17.3. ... The small size of the Pallas, as compared with the other ships, puts her at a great disadvantage as regards comparative rolling in ordinary waves."[28]
"The Achilles has a distance of about 3 feet between the centre of gravity and the metacentre, and is a remarkable steady ship; whereas the Prince Consort, with a distance of 6 feet, rolls much more than the Achilles."[29]
Carrying capacity of wood hulls compared with iron hulls
Parkes claims, "In the Service their construction was regarded as a retrograde movement, their very heavy wooden hulls having only 80 per cent of the carrying capacity of iron ones."[30] However, this view is mistaken and unfair. The following table is taken from Reed.[31] It shows that in 1861, wooden-hulled ironclads had a greater carrying capacity than contemporary iron-hulled designs.
It is of course true, that when Reed's bracket-frame system was introduced with the Bellerophon (laid down December 1863), iron hulls became much lighter for the same strength.[32]
"The Prince Consorts were all three engined by Maudslay and Sons on an identical plan, … the arrangement of their machinery was very unusual, though not entirely without precedent in wooden-hulled steamers. When horizontal reciprocating marine engines were being installed it was necessary as a first step to select a position for the cylinders with enough athwartship level to give a proper length for the stroke… As the Prince Consorts had been shaped with an underwater run of the old style before being ordered for conversion… their floors rose considerably abaft the midship point; which meant the only practicable position for the much larger engines they were to carry was in the added central body halfway between bow and stern."[33] (Iron-hulled ironclads had their engines further aft.) "Return-connecting-rod engines were installed."[34]
Royal Oak's boilers were in one group of six on the forward side of the engines. The Prince Consorts' larger engines required more boilers, so they had two groups of four; one set forward of the engines, and one set further aft; this was why the Prince Consorts had two widely spaced funnels (one for each set of boilers). The Prince Consorts' boilers were not of equal size. The forward set were larger and had five furnaces each, whereas the aft boilers had three furnaces each.[34] "Each group of boilers had its own coal bunkers abreast it".[34] "The boilers worked at 20 lb pressure."[34]
Cost of construction
The following table compares the cost of construction of:
Two-decker steam line of battleships of the Duncan-class. Had the Bulwark class been completed to their original design, their costs would have been similar.
Wooden-hulled ironclad battleships of the Prince Consort class and their half-sister the Royal Oak.
Iron-hulled ironclad battleships (the first seven laid down).
The ironclads were much more expensive both in absolute terms and in cost per ton than the steam wooden line of battleships. The cost per ton of all the ironclads listed was similar, with Prince Consort the least expensive at £36 per ton, and Achilles and Valiant the most expensive at £48 per ton.
Ship
Laid Down
Launched
Completed
Cost of Hull
Cost of Engines & Fittings
Cost of Masts, Sails, Stores, &c., until complete for Sea
None of the cost data in the table above includes the cost of armament. Data on Duncan and Gibraltar are taken from Lambert.[35] The date of steam trials has been taken as the date of completion. Costs probably do not include "masts, sails, stores, &c., until complete for sea". Data on the displacement and construction dates of ironclads has been taken from Conways[36] (except for 'laid down' dates for the conversions from the Bulwark class, which were taken from Lambert.[3] Data on costs of ironclads are the "actual outlay on labour and materials" and were taken from Reed.[37] The costs quoted by Reed are similar (but not always identical) to those quoted in Parkes.[38] Baxter quotes similar but not identical costs for the first four British ironclads.[39]
Notes
↑ Conways, "All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905" p10.
↑ For example: Reed, "Our Iron-Clad Ships". Robinson, "Remarks on Admiral Yelverton's Report on the Cruise of the Channel Fleet". Parkes writing in the 1950s also called them the Caledonias, Parkes, "British Battleships" p55.
1 2 3 4 Lambert, "Battleships in Transition", p 126.
↑ Gladstone to Palmerston, 25 November 1859, in Guedalla, PGladstone and Palmerston, pub London, 1928, p113, referenced by Lambert, Battleships in Transition, p 78.
↑ In the text Baxter quotes the following costs: Warrior £357,291. Black Prince £357,579. Defence £237,614. Resistance £242,265. Hector £283,822. Achilles £444,380. However in a footnote he says: "The ships book for Warrior, however, gives the original cost of her hull and machinery as £356,693 and the total cost, exclusive or armament and coal, as £377,292." The sources for his costs for Warrior and Black Prince were Parliamentary papers, 1866 xlvi, nos 76 and 526. The sources for Defence and Resistance were ships books, UK National Archives file ADM 12/701 paper 59-1 dated 18 May 1861, and returns from the Controller's office in Parliamentary Papers, 1862 xxxiv, no 432, 1863 xxxvi, no 83, and 1866 xlvi, nos 76 and 576. The sources for Hector were the ships book, UK National Archives files ADM 12/701 paper 59-1, ADM 12/705 paper 91-2, ADM 12/720 paper 91-2, and returns from the Controllers office in Parliamentary Papers, 1862 xxxiv, no 432, 1863 xxxvi, no 83, 1866 xlvi, nos 76 and 576, and 1874 xxxviii, no 99. The sources for Achilles were the ship's book, UK National Archives files ADM 12/701 paper 59-1, ADM 12/705 paper 91-2, ADM 12/717 paper 59-1, ADM 12/720 paper 91-2, and returns from the Controllers office in Parliamentary Papers, 1862 xxxiv, no 432, 1866 xlvi, nos 76 and 576, and 1874 xxxviii, no 99. Baxter, "The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship", p 159-60, 166-7.
Related Research Articles
An ironclad is a steam-propelled warship protected by iron or steel armor plates, constructed from 1859 to the early 1890s. The ironclad was developed as a result of the vulnerability of wooden warships to explosive or incendiary shells. The first ironclad battleship, Gloire, was launched by the French Navy in November 1859 – narrowly pre-empting the British Royal Navy.
The seventh HMS Enterprise of the Royal Navy was an armoured sloop launched in 1864 at Deptford Dockyard. Originally laid down as a wooden screw sloop of the Camelion class, she was redesigned by Edward Reed and completed as a central battery ironclad. The ship spent the bulk of her career assigned to the Mediterranean Fleet before returning to England in 1871 where she was paid off. Enterprise was sold for scrap in 1885.
HMS Warrior is a 40-gun steam-powered armoured frigate built for the Royal Navy in 1859–1861. She was the name ship of the Warrior-class ironclads. Warrior and her sister ship HMS Black Prince were the first armour-plated, iron-hulled warships, and were built in response to France's launching in 1859 of the first ocean-going ironclad warship, the wooden-hulled Gloire. Warrior conducted a publicity tour of Great Britain in 1863 and spent her active career with the Channel Squadron. Obsolescent following the 1873 commissioning of the mastless and more capable HMS Devastation, she was placed in reserve in 1875, and was "paid off" – decommissioned – in 1883.
The Warrior-class ironclads were a class of two warships built for the Royal Navy between 1859 and 1862, the first ocean-going ironclads with iron hulls ever constructed. The ships were designed as armoured frigates in response to an invasion scare sparked by the launch of the French ironclad Gloire and her three sisters in 1858. They were initially armed with a mix of rifled breech-loading and muzzle-loading smoothbore guns, but the Armstrong breech-loading guns proved unreliable and were ultimately withdrawn from service.
HMS Black Prince was the third ship of that name to serve with the Royal Navy. She was the world's second ocean-going, iron-hulled, armoured warship, following her sister ship, HMS Warrior. For a brief period the two Warrior-class ironclads were the most powerful warships in the world, being virtually impregnable to the naval guns of the time. Rapid advances in naval technology left Black Prince and her sister obsolete within a short time, however, and she spent more time in reserve and training roles than in first-line service.
The two Trafalgar-class battleships of the British Royal Navy were late-nineteenth-century ironclad warships. Both were named after naval battles won by the British during the Napoleonic Wars under the command of Admiral Nelson. The two ships were named HMS Nile and HMS Trafalgar.
HMS Royal Oak was a Prince Consort-class armoured frigate built for the Royal Navy in the 1860s. The lead ship of her class, she is sometimes described as a half-sister to the other three ships because of her different engine and boiler arrangements. Like her sisters, she was converted into an ironclad from a wooden ship of the line that was still under construction.
The Defence-class ironclads were a class of two warships built for the Royal Navy between 1859 and 1862. The ships were designed as armoured frigates in response to an invasion scare sparked by the launch of the French ironclad Gloire and her three sisters in 1858. They were initially armed with a mix of rifled breech-loading and muzzle-loading smoothbore guns, but the Armstrong breech-loading guns proved unreliable and were withdrawn from service after a few years.
HMS Achilles was an armoured frigate built for the Royal Navy in the 1860s. Upon her completion in 1864 she was assigned to the Channel Fleet. The ship was paid off in 1868 to refit and be re-armed. When she recommissioned in 1869, she was assigned as the guard ship of the Fleet Reserve in the Portland District until 1874. Achilles was refitted and re-armed again in 1874 and became the guard ship of the Liverpool District in 1875. Two years later, she was rejoined the Channel Fleet before going to the Mediterranean in 1878. The ship returned to the Channel Fleet in 1880 and served until she was paid off in 1885.
HMS Caledonia was a broadside ironclad of the Prince Consort class. Originally laid down as a two-decker steam ship of the line of the Bulwark class, Caledonia was converted on the building stocks into an armoured frigate.
HMS Northumberland was the last of the three Minotaur-class armoured frigates built for the Royal Navy during the 1860s. She had a different armour scheme and heavier armament than her sister ships, and was generally regarded as a half-sister to the other ships of the class. The ship spent her career with the Channel Squadron and occasionally served as a flagship. Northumberland was placed in reserve in 1890 and became a training ship in 1898. She was converted into a coal hulk in 1909 and sold in 1927, although the ship was not scrapped until 1935.
HMS Research was a small ironclad warship, converted from a wooden-hulled sloop and intended as an experimental platform in which to try out new concepts in armament and in armour. She was launched in 1863, laid up in 1878 and sold for breaking in 1884, having displayed serious limitations as a warship.
The Lord Clyde-class ironclads were a pair of wooden-hulled armoured frigates built for the Royal Navy in the 1860s. They were designed by Sir Edward Reed and built to make use of the large stocks of seasoned timber available in the royal shipyards.
HMS Lord Warden was the second and last ship of the wooden-hulled Lord Clyde class of armoured frigates built for the Royal Navy (RN) during the 1860s. She and her sister ship, Lord Clyde, were the heaviest wooden ships ever built and were also the fastest steaming wooden ships. They were also the slowest-sailing ironclads in the RN.
HMS Bellerophon was a central battery ironclad built for the Royal Navy in the mid-1860s.
HMS Repulse was the last wooden battleship constructed for the Royal Navy.
The Audacious-class ironclad battleships were designed by Sir Edward Reed at the request of the Board of Admiralty to serve as second-class battleships on distant foreign stations.
The Bulwark class were the final class of wooden line-of-battle ships laid down for the Royal Navy. They were laid down after HMS Warrior. In March 1861 their construction was suspended, and seven were later converted to iron-clads. HMS Bulwark and HMS Robust were kept on the stocks almost complete, in case of need, until they were scrapped in 1873 and 1872.
Admiral Sir Robert Spencer Robinson, was a British naval officer, who served as two five-year terms as Controller of the Navy from February 1861 to February 1871, and was therefore responsible for the procurement of warships at a time when the Royal Navy was changing over from unarmoured wooden ships to ironclads. As a result of the Captain disaster, Robinson was not given a third term as Controller. Robinson has been "described as having one of the best brains of any Victorian admiral".
References
Ballard, Admiral G.A. The Black Battlefleet, published Nautical Publications Co. and Society for Nautical Research, 1980. ISBN0-245-53030-4
Baxter, James Phinney The Introduction of the Ironclad Warship, published Harvard University, 1933.
Clowes, William LairdFour Modern Naval Campaigns, Historical Strategical, and Tactical, first published Unit Library, 1902, reprinted Cornmarket Press, 1970.
Lambert, AndrewBattleships in Transition, the Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860, published Conway Maritime Press, 1984. ISBN0-85177-315-X
Laughton, John KnoxEssay on Naval Tactics, 1873, published as Part 2 of The Gun, Ram and Torpedo, Manoeuvres and tactics of a Naval Battle of the Present Day, by Gerard Noel, 2nd Edition, pub Griffin 1885.
Parkes, Oscar British Battleships, first published Seeley Service & Co, 1957, published United States Naval Institute Press, 1990. ISBN1-55750-075-4
Reed, Edward JOur Ironclad Ships, their Qualities, Performance and Cost, published John Murray, 1869.
Robinson, Robert SpencerRemarks on Admiral Yelverton's Report on the Cruise of the Channel Fleet, Department of the Controller of the Navy reference DS5205, December 1866, UK National Archives file ADM 1/5968.
Robinson, Robert Spencerletter DM No 976, 18 January 1866, UK National Archives file ADM 1/5980.
Mediterranean Station Correspondence, UK National Archives files ADM 135/1, ADM 135/3, and ADM 135/4.
Report and papers on Sanitary Condition of HMS Royal Oak, in Mediterranean Station Correspondence, UK National Archives files ADM 1/592, and ADM 121/3
Reports and papers on rearmament of ironclads 1866-7, UK National Archives file ADM 1/5980.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Royal Navy 
