Good point there, that both Russia and China have taken notice of. Russia is fielding the Topol-M mobile ICBM, and China the DF-31 (another mobile ICBM). Interestingly, both Russia and China are also fielding submarine-launched versions of both missiles (Bulava and JL-2, respectively). :know:

That is a good question that bothered me for some time. Although I could not find a definitive answer this is what I concluded.

First they made lotsa big SSBNs in SSBN frenzy 70s, thinking they'll send them accross the ocean to sit off New York etc., then they realised (mostly thru Walker espionage ring in early 80s, as Bill mentioned) that USN in fact can follow their subs very precisely and kill them at their discretion at minutes' notice, then they did two things:

a) Invested lots of resources into quieting their subs - end result being the Akula H/Ks

b) Devised a system to use their existing SSBNs from relative impunity, ie well defended bastions close to their home ports.

So, keeping subs close to home was invented *after* the subs were already at sea for some time.

Now, why would anyone invest into *further* developing SSBNs *after* all this (as Russians apparently do, with their Juri Dolgoruki class) - is a true mystery to me. It would appear to me that, indeed, SSBNs make no sense anymore. (Not even for the USN, let alone Russians)

O.

why dont they keep it to land base.

landbases cant be mobile a submarine can and is also less vunreble to be attacked so thats why they maintain the fleet

curently 15 or 16 SSBN's are in service with russia (due to be cut to 12 when the borey starts in full swing)