BlondieBC
Banned
I've just read an article in my 1969/70 Janes Fighting Ships and it makes mention of the closed cycle diesel and the fuel cell. Yet despite the need being recognised soon after the first flush of nuclear submarines and the basic technology being there it still took 26 and 35 years for these technologoes to make it to sea. It most certainly didn't take that long for most of the world's navies and governments to know that they required submarines but would never get nukes, they would have known this by the mid 60s.
Oh, and the Barbel rammed that freighter in the river, hardly an ideal fighting move.
A lot of these smaller navies don't have a submarine building industry, so the cost is not just developing the engine, but developing the entire shipbuilding industrial base. USA/Nato and USSR had access to SSN and SSBN. Who else has a need for such long range vessels when the old diesel electric with snorkel works ok and is cheap. To me it looks more like a cost/budget issue.
On another issue, I don't see the bases being a big issue. The USA had a pretty good network of bases, and without SSN coming into existence, the USA would have had a real incentive to help the UK keep its world wide network of bases. With places like the Suez, Singapore, and Hong Kong, there should be plenty of bases.
The USSR will have more of an issues, and may well pick another naval strategy.
And by changing both powers naval strategy, we will see subtle and powerful butterflies. For example, instead of pushing for decolonization, the USA might be pressuring the UK to allow Singapore and Hong Kong to vote in the House of commons. USA might support UK/France/Israel in Suez crisis.