Falkland's Kills[edit]

This well referenced source (see link for list of all sources for each kill) indicates 7 confirmed kills, and at least 2 further possibles. I have therefore changed the text in the article to indicate this Emoscopes Talk 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed text from user User talk:84.152.53.213;
"Sea Dart was used during the Falklands War and is credited with 6 confirmed kill: one Puma, one A-4B, three A-4C, one Learjet and one Canberra."
This totals 7 kills, which agrees with my sources, why do you keep reverting to 6 kills? Please do not keep reverting the article until you have voiced any concerns here on the talk page, where they belong. Emoscopes Talk 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that there was another kill on June 6. This was a British army helicopter (a "friendly fire" kill). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.145.202.1 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colours[edit]

Would anyone care to comment on the colour of these missiles? My understanding is that live missiles are painted white and non-live (practice) missiles may be red or black. --Vvmodel (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct; live ones were white, drill missiles were red I've never heard of em being black though. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drill rounds on Sea Dart are red, they are basically mass balanced dummies with no electronics or internals. The old colour system for drill rounds would have had them painted black, I think the colour system changed in 1969 when they adopted a NATO standard - before my time though. Justin talk 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The warshot rounds are back to black forebodies as of Mod 3 - it improves performance of the IR fuze. Jrwlynch (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For United States the drill rounds for Tarter/Terrier/ SM were blue. And then had some internals/ electronics. No warhead or explosives or energetic rocket. internal Electronics would light up a light bulb when proper launching voltage currents and signals were applied to this missile. - To test those circuits Wfoj3 (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawal[edit]

The section 'Withdrawal' appears to be incorrect and the reference is a broken link. The April 2012 firing was the last 'planned' firing to prove the operation of the system prior to HMS Edinburgh's last deployment, the system is still operational

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/April/20/120420-Final-Sea-Dart-Firing

"The firing was carried out to show the system could still be used, as Edinburgh will serve as the UK’s final Type 42 destroyer while the new Type 45 destroyers and their Sea Viper missiles enter service." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.25.13 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Bristol odin be merged into Sea Dart as the engine is an integral part of the missile--Petebutt (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As there has been no support for this merger proposal after 6 months I have removed the banner.— Rod talk 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sea Dart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broomstick comparable to SPY-1?[edit]

This claim is flagged as "dubious - discuss" in the article, and quite rightly so.

"Broomstick", or SPS-01 as it was called in Dutch service, was a conventional radar using a similar principle to some other Dutch radars (such as the WM series) whereby one transmitter/receiver feeds multiple aerials with different characteristics housed in a common dome. In the case of SPS-01, these comprised two parabaloid dishes and two frequency-scanned arrays (similar to US SPS-39/42/48/52 aerials), all rotating mechanically at 20rpm and with the elevation of the parabaloids' beams controlled by mechanically moving their feed horns.

This is totally different to the SPY-1 system which uses fundamentally more advanced "phased array" technology. In this, four FIXED arrays, each comprised of thousands of small transmitters and receivers, form beams by the constructive interferance between their individually weak signals, and steer those beams by varying the pulse timing between transmitters under computer control. This means the beams can flick around as fast as flicking a switch, not being limited by the inertia or actuator strenght of a conventional mechanical system.

SPS-01 could handle more targets than a single aerial system, but SYS-1 can handle as many targets as it's computers have memory. They are in no way comparable, either technologically or militarily. SPS-01 was an incremental improvement on previous systems: SYS-1 was a game-changer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hws5mp (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories