92 replies to this topic

[pakistanigunner]

thanks for the info...helped me understand a lot

[leuitenentcolonel]

Four used S-Class frigates were bought from Greece, the HS Bouboulina (F-463), HS Kanaris (F-464), HS Nikiforos Fokas (F-466) and the HS Themistoklis (F-465). They will be commissioned into the Navy by the end of 2007. The S-Class has a displacement of nearly 3800 tons and surpasses the PN's Type-21 in regards to performance, weapons and systems. It is likely that the Pakistan Navy S-Class frigates will go through a similar upgrade as their Greek counterparts.



I read this para in some defence website can someone confirm it here

[penguin]

Four used S-Class frigates were bought from Greece, the HS Bouboulina (F-463), HS Kanaris (F-464), HS Nikiforos Fokas (F-466) and the HS Themistoklis (F-465). They will be commissioned into the Navy by the end of 2007. The S-Class has a displacement of nearly 3800 tons and surpasses the PN's Type-21 in regards to performance, weapons and systems. It is likely that the Pakistan Navy S-Class frigates will go through a similar upgrade as their Greek counterparts.
I read this para in some defence website can someone confirm it here

This export can only take place when Dutch government approves the resale of these former Dutch frigates by Greece to Pakistan. To the best of my knowledge, this was not applied for / granted yet. I've government documentation dating 13 juli 2006 indicating the Greek government had not yet approached the Dutch government for this at that time.

[vegeta]

I can help you with the subs classification bit:

SSK: diesel or other conventionally powered sub. Examples include Pakistani Agostas and Indian Kilos etc. (most countries have SSKs).

SSN: nucleared powered hunter-killer sub. examples include Los Angeles class, UK Trafalgar class etc. (only Britian, France, US, Russia and China have these).

SSBN: nuclear powered ballistic missile subs that provide nuclear detterents for the countries that have them. Examples include the massive Trident class of US and the biggest sub ever made, Russia's Typhoon class of which the Kursk was an example. (the same 5 listed above also have SSBNs).

regards.

KURSK WAS AN OSCAR CLASS SSGN ,NOT SSBN.ITS MAIN ARMAMENT IS SS-N-19 CRUISE MISSILES.THE OSCAR CLASS SUBS ARE THE MOST ADVANCED SSGNs [DEDICATED CRUISE MISSILE LAUNCHERS]IN THE WORLD AND WERE BUILT TO DESTROY THE U.S CARRIER BATTLEGROUPS.OTHER SSGNsARE ECHO1,2 AND YANKEE NOTCH CLASS RUSSIAN SUBS.[NOW NO LONGER IN FRONTLINE SERVICE].REGARDS.

[vegeta]

cruiser is aslo a type of battleship?

UP UNTILWW2 AND THE ADVENT OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS THE BATTLESHIPS USED TO BE THE FLAGSHIPS OF NAVIES.2ND IN LINE WERE THEBATTLE-CRUISERS.THE MAIN DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THOUGH BOTH HAD VERY GREAT ARMAMENT AND WERE VERY COSTLY ,BATTLE CRUISERS TRADED THE BATTLESHIPS ARMOUR FOR GREATER SPEED.AFTER WW2 THESE SHIPS RAPIDLY DISAPPEARED FROM ALL NAVIES[ONLY THE U.S IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIPS WERE KEPT IN RESERVE] THE MODERN CRUISERS IN NAVIES ARE MUCH SMALLER AND PRINCIPALLY CARRY GUIDED MISSILES IN STEAD OF BIG GUNS.[JAPANESE YAMATO HAD 9 18 INCH GUNS]THEY MAINLY ACT AS CARRIER ESCORTS.[U.S TICONDEROGA CLASS AEGIS CRUISERS].HOWEVER IN THE LATTER PART OF THE COLD WAR THE BATTLE CRUISER MADE A TRIUMPHANT RETURN IN FORM OF THE RUSSIAN KIROV CLASS.THESE ARE STILL THE PRINCIPAL SHIPS OF THE RUSSIAN NAVY WITH CARRIER 'KUZNETSOV'.
[THE KIROV CLASS ARE VERY POWERFUL SHIPS WITHANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILES[24LAUNCHERS],CIWS,GUNS,ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE ROCKET LAUNCHERS AND TORPEDOES,HELICOPTERS AND LARGE NO. OF SAMs.

FACED WITH THESE THREATS THE U.S NAVY REACTIVATED THEIR 4 IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIPS AND REFURBISHED THEM WITH HARPOONS,TOMAHAWKS AND SAMs.AFTER THE END OF THE COLD WAR THEY WERE PUT IN RESERVE.

YOU CAN FIND MORE ABOUT CRUISERS ON WIKIPEDIA.REGARDS.

[mmkextreme_1]

deleted...

[000786]

Is PN using any RPV's or UAV's currently. If any then what is their range?ceiling etc.

[Avinandan]

Question : What are the different topedoes operational in PN today?
Request to provide the specs too.

Thanks in advance,
Avinandan

[Avinandan]

Question 1 : What is the most vulnerable area of a Submarine ?
Question 2 : Generally you use soft defensive measures like countermeasures to defend against oncoming torpedoes.
Are there any active defensive measures from the Submarine's Point of View.

[000786]

You have to keep in mind that what defines a cruiser, destroyer, frigate etc changes over time.

Tonnage is one factor.
Also. remember: if for the budget, ships will be underrated (e.g. calling a destroyer a frigate, like Dutch LCF) but for the opponent it will be overrated (calling a corvette a destroyer, like Iranian 1400 ton surface combattant)

where does hovercraft stand in all this classification?

[Londo Molari]

where does hovercraft stand in all this classification?

hovercrafts have never had the kind of firepower that surface combatants have had. Nor can they lift a lot of weight. They would be smaller than a corvette, smaller than even a missile boat... maybe hovercraft is a class of its own.

[faz101]

hovercrafts have never had the kind of firepower that surface combatants have had. Nor can they lift a lot of weight. They would be smaller than a corvette, smaller than even a missile boat... maybe hovercraft is a class of its own.

hovercrafts can lift a sizeable amount of weight...the USN's LCACs for instance can take around 4 M2 Abrams tanks ashore at the same time...

[Londo Molari]

Wow, I looked it up, thats pretty impressive.

Then I suppose the only reason we don't see hovercraft as surface combatants is because they would be shaking violently in big deep see waves? They seem to be used for operation in very shallow waters close to shore.

[Amna Malik]

What is the history and spec of agosta 70, i ca't find it on wikipedia or google.

[noxiouspython]

Aoa

Is Pakistan thinking of giving the Navy some fighters as well? I heard something about it, but nothing came after that. I think somoene mention even Rafael, but I thought that was a bit too much, maybe JF-17 or at most FC-20?

I'd appriciate some info on this.

w/salaam

[Londo Molari]

Currently, Pakistan Air Force provides and operates the maritime squadron, which works with the PN. Its all Mirages armed with Exocet I think.

As far as I know, there has been no official indication that Pakistan navy would operate its own fighters. Given the size of Pakistan and Pakistan Navy, I don't think its practical for the Navy to have their own pilot training, fighters, and airforce tactics, all just for 1 squadron. It makes a lot more sense to have a PAF squadron work with the Navy. And thats what we do.

As for what fighter will replace the Mirages, again there is no official news. It could be F-16s, armed with Harpoons, or it would be JF-17s armed with Exocets or C-802/3s. I doubt the J-10/FC-20 would be used for naval role.

[noxiouspython]

Aoa

Currently, Pakistan Air Force provides and operates the maritime squadron, which works with the PN. Its all Mirages armed with Exocet I think.

As far as I know, there has been no official indication that Pakistan navy would operate its own fighters. Given the size of Pakistan and Pakistan Navy, I don't think its practical for the Navy to have their own pilot training, fighters, and airforce tactics, all just for 1 squadron. It makes a lot more sense to have a PAF squadron work with the Navy. And thats what we do.

As for what fighter will replace the Mirages, again there is no official news. It could be F-16s, armed with Harpoons, or it would be JF-17s armed with Exocets or C-802/3s. I doubt the J-10/FC-20 would be used for naval role.

Thanks for the helpful reply. Correct me if I am wrong, but does this mean that there is a squadron at the disposal of our navy all the time?

w/salaam

[Londo Molari]

Yep!

[wulff]

hi,

I would any appreciate information regarding the chinese supersonic and hypersonic ship killer missiles, and whether Pakistan is involved in any such programme.

[Alkhalid-19]

Hello brothers

are this frigates in Service of Pakistan navy or not ?

[Simpleton]

Salaam everyone. I have a question regarding the status of PNS Zulfiqar (the 1st boat of the F-22P class that was supposedly launched back in April).
Is it undergoing sea trials?
Or is it undergoing installation and final build?
Or by launch back in April 2008 did the mean only the hull was launched and the ship actually isn't fully built yet?
Also when is it expected to be in Pakistan?

[daccan]

Did we decommission any Type -21. On the Pak navy site they are listing only 5 type 21's instead of 6.


http://www.paknavy.g...k/destroyer.htm

PNS TARIQ:
PNS TIPPU SULTAN:
PNS BABUR:
PNS KHAIBAR:
PNS BADR:

PNS Shah Jahan is missing

I thought we will be using 6 Type-21 along side 4 F-22P.


Any informed resource can provide update on this. Thanks.

[Skull-Buster]

Any updates on the Brunei Nakhoda Class corvettes we were supposed to get?

[Londo Molari]

Hello brothers

are this frigates in Service of Pakistan navy or not ?

No I think its being used for training now-a-days. Used to be active before we got the Type-21's.

[Alkhalid-19]

No I think its being used for training now-a-days. Used to be active before we got the Type-21's.

Now this ship visit Sri-Lanka vor a goodwill mission !

[pakpardessi]

I will be grateful if someone can point to online resources that give information regarding different types of naval ships that Indian Navy has, and what kind of weaponry, air defences, electronic countermeasure capabilities these ships have?

[Web Master]

I will be grateful if someone can point to online resources that give information regarding different types of naval ships that Indian Navy has, and what kind of weaponry, air defences, electronic countermeasure capabilities these ships have?

The best thing to do would be to vist one of the Indian defence sites for that info. google it.

Edited by Web Master, 15 September 2009 - 01:33 PM.

[Ravi Javed]

India to station all MiG-29s along Pak border

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The Indian Air Force (IAF) has decided to station all its MiG-29 squadrons at Adampur to beef up air defence capabilities and react in the shortest possible time along the international border with Pakistan, the Indian Express has reported.
“We consider ourselves to be a strategic air power establishment of the IAF in the western sector, ever ready for operations,” said Air Commodore HS Arora, Air Officer Commanding of the Adampur airbase.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence has signed a contract with the RAC MiG aircraft corporation to extend the service life of the MiG-29 by 25 to 40 years. Arora said six MiG-29 fighters were being upgraded and flight-tested in Russia, adding the remaining aircraft would be overhauled in India with the aid of Russian experts. “The upgraded MiG-29 fighters will have better radar systems and avionics to help fighters, a new weapon control system and modernised RD-33 engines, which would increase the aircraft hitting capability from long ranges,” he added.
Separately, the Indian army is planning to acquire 300 light tanks for deployment in the mountainous regions of the border with China and Pakistan, the Press Trust Of India has reported. It cited army sources as saying the tanks would be deployed in Jammu and Kashmir in the north and Arunachal Pradesh and Assam in the northeast.

[pakzgood]

ok does anyone know that how many exocets anti-ship missiles did argentina have in fakland wars.i have heard that they only had 5 missiles and they destroyed 3 british ships with it?is it true?

[penguin]

[editted]

[penguin]

ok does anyone know that how many exocets anti-ship missiles did argentina have in fakland wars.i have heard that they only had 5 missiles and they destroyed 3 british ships with it?is it true?

5 AM-39 (air-launched version) for 5 Super Étendards. All used, with 3 out of 5 hitting a totla of 2 ships. Of those hitting, at least 1 did not explode. The hits caused fires in the ship, one of which a civilian ship without comparable damage control to a military ship. Eventually the fire damage let to their demise (1 ship flooded in heavy seas, the other was sunk by the brits themselves).

In addtion, the Argentine navy operated 5 ships equipped with the surface launched MM-39 variant, for a total of at least 20 missiles.

The Argentine Navy decided to buy 14 Super Étendards in 1980, after the United States put an arms embargo in place—due to the Dirty War—and refused to supply spare parts for their A-4Q Skyhawks. Argentine pilots used French flight trainers between November 1980 and August 1981 in France, but at the time of the Falklands War, they had received only 45 hours of actual flight time in the aircraft.[5]
Between August and November 1981, five Super Étendards and five [AM-39] Exocets were shipped to Argentina. All five of the missiles were used during the conflict, with one missile hitting the British destroyer HMS Sheffield and two the merchant aircraft transporter Atlantic Conveyor. Two missiles were used in each of those attacks. The fifth missile was launched in an attack intended to strike against the British aircraft carrier HMS Invincible but the attacking aircraft failed to find their target.[6] (A sixth Exocet, which damaged HMS Glamorgan, was a land-launched ship's [MM-38] missile, set up in an improvised truck-trailer platform by Argentine technicians.[7])

http://en.wikipedia....Super_Étendard

In 1982, during the Falklands War, Exocets became noted worldwide when Argentine Navy Exocet-equipped Super Etendard warplanes sank the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May, 1982, and the 15,000 ton merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor, were struck by two Exocet anti-ship missiles, on 25 May. An MM38 ship-to-ship Exocet transferred from the Argentinean Navy destroyer ARA Guerrico to a trailer for land use [5] damaged HMS Glamorgan on 12 June.

An Exocet impacted Sheffield amidships, approximately 8 feet above the waterline on Deck 2, tearing a gash in the hull.[3] The other missile splashed into the sea half a mile off her port beam.The Exocets were fired from two Super Étendards.
The MOD report into the sinking of the Sheffield concluded that: "Evidence indicates that the warhead did not detonate". the impact of the missile and the burning rocket motor set Sheffield ablaze. Accounts suggest that the initial impact of the missile immediately crippled the ship's onboard electricity generating systems and fractured the water main, preventing the anti-fire mechanisms from operating effectively, and thereby dooming the ship to be consumed by the raging fire.
The burnt-out hulk was taken in tow by the Rothesay class frigate HMS Yarmouth but sank at 53°04'S, 56°56' W on 10 May 1982; the high seas led to slow flooding through the hole in the ship's side, which eventually took her to the bottom.

The Exocet that struck Glamorgan failed to explode, but the unburnt rocket fuel caused a significant fire. It is likely that Glamorgan was saved from complete destruction by the prompt action of the officers and men at the helm. With less than a minute's warning that a missile was incoming, they ordered maximum revolutions and turned to present her stern to the missile. When the missile struck, the ship was heeled far over to port and instead of striking the side the missile hit the coaming and was deflected upwards. The dent caused by the impact was clearly visible when Glamorgan was refitted in late 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
http://en.wikipedia....Sheffield_(D80)
http://en.wikipedia....ard#cite_note-4

On 25 May 1982 the Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two[2] Exocet missiles fired by a pair of Argentine Super Étendard jet fighter. The ship caught fire, the fire then became uncontrollable. When the fire had burnt out, the ship was boarded but nothing was recoverable and so the decision was made to sink her. It is unclear whether the missile's warhead detonated — some speculate that the Exocet that struck HMS Sheffield did not explode — but the ship was set alight by the impact of the missiles and the unburnt rocket fuel.[citation needed] Other sources indicate the warhead exploded after penetrating the ships hull to where trucks and fuel were stored resulting in an uncontrollable fire

http://en.wikipedia....lantic_Conveyor

In 1982, Argentina operated two Type 42 destroyers, just like the british ones, but equiped with MM-38: ARA Hercules and ARA Santisima Trinidad

The ARA Guerrico is NOT a destroyer, but a corvette of the Drummond class, consiting of 3 ships originally built by France (A69 aviso type a.k.a. D'Estienne d'Orves class) for South Africa but sold to Argentina instead. It too was MM-38 equipped.

The ARA's MEKO ships (4 MM-40 armed Meko 360H2 and 6 MM-38 armed MEKO 140) were not yet completed and/or in service at the time of the Falklands conflict.

[Simpleton]

Salaam. Some hypothetical questions, I hope somebody knowledgeable answers them.

Just like with our airspace and incursions is there a limit after which unauthorized vessels can be engaged legally? Like when IAF a/c flew across the border and scurried back last year, from what I understood of the situation had it crossed a certain point it would have been engaged. Is there such a limit if an unauthorized a/c, surface vessel or sub-surface vessel from another nation were to enter the airspace over Pakistani territorial waters or cross into Pakistani territorial waters.

The reason I ask is because submarine v. submarine warfare is inherently secretive. I mean even during peacetime the sub service is always tracking hunting and practicing taking the shot on enemy vessels. Also, subs from the major powers are often patrolling the territorial waters of their potential adversaries, or in the case of actual declared actions such as the recent deployment of Israeli sub in Iranian territorial waters. Of course without permission the presence of such a submarine is in violation of the territorial sovereignty of a nation. Now lets say hypothetically the Indians are doing the same to us and we manage to detect the sub withing our territorial waters without being detected ourselves, why not engage and destroy the Indian sub? After all they can't blame Pakistan for any action, as they aren't supposed to be there and we can easily play dumb and instead show our indignation should they claim that we sunk their vessel, as saying "why were they in our waters, and how dare they blame us for the loss of their sub, for all we know it sank due to their own ineptitude." Besides there will be no "proof" that we did it.

Personally I think we should quietly sink all non Pakistani subs that enter into our territorial waters.


Now let's suppose PN/ISI/MI or whomever discovers the location of Site Bravo (where SSBN Arihant is undergoing sea trials) isn't it worthwhile due to the secretive nature of submarine warfare and the inherent deniability of such actions that we should plan and execute a sinking effort? I mean if they say PN sunk our sub, it's embarrassing for them; if they claim it was "technical" problems that too is embarrassing for them, so they'll have to stay mum, also, they'll probably be other navies subs eavesdropping in the region so whose to say who launched the weapon? Again there will be no "proof" if we do something like this.

[Londo Molari]

Personally I think we should quietly sink all non Pakistani subs that enter into our territorial waters.

Yes, we can do that. That's why if anybody comes into our waters, they probably make sure to stay hidden. Detecting subs is veeeeery difficult, that's why subs are so dangerous.

isn't it worthwhile due to the secretive nature of submarine warfare and the inherent deniability of such actions that we should plan and execute a sinking effort? I mean if they say PN sunk our sub, it's embarrassing for them; if they claim it was "technical" problems that too is embarrassing for them, so they'll have to stay mum, also, they'll probably be other navies subs eavesdropping in the region so whose to say who launched the weapon? Again there will be no "proof" if we do something like this.

No that's not a worthwhile idea for 2 reasons:
1) If we sink a ship of theirs outside our territorial waters, they would consider it an act of war, as would be logical, and we would be in serious trouble. Doesn't matter if we deny it. If they believe we did it, it could start a war.
2) Submarines are great at hiding, as long as they don't engage. Once they attack some1, they are in serious danger. So we could lose our attacking sub and sailors in the process.

[Simpleton]

Yes, we can do that. That's why if anybody comes into our waters, they probably make sure to stay hidden. Detecting subs is veeeeery difficult, that's why subs are so dangerous.

No that's not a worthwhile idea for 2 reasons:
1) If we sink a ship of theirs outside our territorial waters, they would consider it an act of war, as would be logical, and we would be in serious trouble. Doesn't matter if we deny it. If they believe we did it, it could start a war.
2) Submarines are great at hiding, as long as they don't engage. Once they attack some1, they are in serious danger. So we could lose our attacking sub and sailors in the process.

Thanks for the reply. But my main question regarding the limit after which engagement is authorized with regards to the territroial waters remains unanswered.

[Londo Molari]

Thanks for the reply. But my main question regarding the limit after which engagement is authorized with regards to the territroial waters remains unanswered.

If an enemy combatant is in our territorial water without our permission, yes we have the legal right to destroy it. But not in international waters. And even if a submarine is inside our territorial waters #1) it is hard to find and #2) would we really want to destroy it and hurt diplomatic relations? Its not as simple as black and white. Often in reality, international law doesn't dictate actions, instead propaganda can support illegal actions. Just look at Israel. So you have to play it smart and look at international atmosphere.

[Simpleton]

If an enemy combatant is in our territorial water without our permission, yes we have the legal right to destroy it. But not in international waters. And even if a submarine is inside our territorial waters #1) it is hard to find and #2) would we really want to destroy it and hurt diplomatic relations? Its not as simple as black and white. Often in reality, international law doesn't dictate actions, instead propaganda can support illegal actions. Just look at Israel. So you have to play it smart and look at international atmosphere.

I understand what you're saying, but my questions were hypothetical in nature. I think I may have been unclear in asking my question, remember the mid december 2008 IAF airspace violation that was supposedly a "technical intrusion" where IAF jets entered Pakistani airspace in two places and penetrated around 4 to 5 km before PAF forced them back? Well my curiosity piqued in that the IAF wasn't immediately blown out of the sky no questions asked. That was the first time I paid attention to this aspect of our border management, I found out through the discussions on the boards that because jets fly fast they often make technical intrusions into each others space, and to prevent such incidents precipitating a shooting war, a certain leeway is given that if after crossing the border a plane turns back before crossing a certain limit then it won't be fired upon, I think the general consesus on the boards was like 7km or something (I can't be sure and can't find that topic). I also learned that there's usually a stretch of airspace on both sides of the border where military craft don't fly so as to prevent such technical intrusions and also allow air defense time to intercept, barring this combined 20 or so Km strip an aircraft will be engaged. My question arose from looking for a similar scenario on the naval side. i.e., airspace over Pakistani waters (b/c no targets as such so is this no fly area less likely to be enforced or is simply larger?) and the Pakistani territorial water border, again technically if something enters and happens to be in shooting range, how deep a penetration will be tolerated before warnings turn to shooting across the bow to actual engagement?

[Londo Molari]

Hmmm, I see.

For air force I know that in peacetime if we shoot down enemy aircraft and it crashes back on enemy soil, then it is considered illegal. That is why we give some room. If it crashes in our soil, then we were justified to shoot it down. I don't know if similar laws exist for navy.

[AL-khalid]

I have a question regarding induction of females in Navy. Are females still inducted in Navy for the legal branch?

[Deepanshu]

good work




Free Themes
Free ebooks

[Simpleton]

I have a question regarding induction of females in Navy. Are females still inducted in Navy for the legal branch?

PN Careers

Induction of Short Service Commission Officers in following branches of Pakistan Navy is carried out as and when required. Short Service Commission is basically for five years which may be extended and converted into permanent commission:

* Education Branch
* Special Branch (Computer Programmer/IT Specialists)
* Law Branch

Nine months training will be given at various training establishments of Pakistan Navy.


LAW BRANCH

ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS:

· Male/Female citizen of Pakistan
· Age: Between 25 to 40 years
· Height: 162.5 Centimeters (5’ – 4”) Minimum.
· Qualification:

o In possession of Law Degree which should be held in addition to a degree in Arts or Sciences from a recognized university.
o A practicing member of a Bar.

INELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS

· Rejected by ISSB:

o Twice after Post Graduation
o Once before Post Graduation and once after Post Graduation
o Twice before Post Graduation and once after Post Graduation

· Resigned/dismissed/withdrawn from Armed Forces
· Dismissed/removed from Govt service.
· Convicted by a court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude
· Declared medically unfit by an Armed Forces Appeal Medical Board
· Married to a Foreign National
· Submitting tampered original academic certificates
· Concealment of information in the application form

SELECTION PROCEDURE

· Entrance Test (Intelligence Test)
· Preliminary Medical
· Interview
Note: Application forms will be issued to those candidates who qualify all the above tests
· Test/Interview at ISSB Kohat/Gujranwala/Malir/Quetta
· Medical Examination at one of the Military Hospitals
· Interview by Naval Selection Board
· Final selection by Naval Headquarters

HOW TO APPLY

For Registration. visit nearest Pakistan Navy Recruitment & Selection Centre along with original and attested photo copies of following academic documents and an uncrossed Postal Order of Rs. 100/- in the name of Director of Recruitment .

* Matric, FSc, BA/BSc, MA/MSc certificates/degrees and mark sheets
* National Identity Card
* Domicile Certificate
* 3 attested passport size photographs
*Important
· Candidates should apply on prescribed application forms
· Incomplete applications will not be entertained.
· Candidates claiming antedate seniority must attach higher qualification and experience certificates issued by respective heads of recognized institutions.
· Candidate with higher qualification/experience may be considered for grant of higher rank/seniority.

Note

Induction of SSC Officers is not a regular feature. Therefore, application may only be submitted as and when advertisement appears in the press.