I take your point that the toss attack isnít modelled in CMNAO thatís why I suggested the GBU-24 attack, with a 2000ft release height itís a pretty close match to the release height for a toss attack.
Junk SARH SAMs is a bit of a stretch, the RN had 23 surface ships, 9 (40%) of those were equipped with either sea wolf or sea dart , SAM systems less than 10 years old. Granted the older Sea Slug (1st Gen late 1950s SAM) was useless, but only the two county class were equipped with those. Seacat equipped 11 of the smaller surface units, this was again a short range system designed to replace the 40mm bofors gun system on surface ships. Sea Dart scored 4 hits out 5 in the medium arena, and two out of 19 for the low level targets, Ill caveat this by saying numerous sea darts were fired ballistically, in order to provide a distraction for attack pilots, if you take them out , then although not a great score, it delivered more than was expected of it. Seawolf did well however was too few in number. Not sure if you were aware but it was a Sea dart that knocked down and Iraqi Silkworm in 1991 that was targeted on the USS Missouri.
The real reason the RN suffered horrible losses in ships, especially at sea, was that the RN due to the lack of AEW coverage, this contributed significantly to losses, as it forced the TF Cmdr, to push single/ double units out ahead of the main group of warships along likely threat vectors, the natural argentine tactic was to bomb the first warship they came across and thatís totally understandable. That led to the loss of the radar pickets.
You are correct blowpipe scored few kills, but I havenít seen anything that says they were fired from TF ships, the RAF and Army had Rapier once they landed, and the SAS/SBS had access to stinger, BTW the SAS lost their only qualified Stinger instructor in a crash at the start of the war, so it was very much on the job training when the SAS fired stingers.
List of major surface ships (Less carriers and amphibs)
1 Type 82 Class (Sea Dart) 1973
5 Type 42 Class (Sea Dart) 1975
2 County Class (Sea Slug) 1962
2 Type 22 ( Sea Wolf) 1979
7 Type 21 (Seacat) 1974
4 Leander Class (Seacat/Seawolf) 1963
2 Rothesay Class (Seacat) 1958
23 surface ships
thanks for the history lesson (that sounds snide but I'm not being sarcastic, i don't know very much about the falklands war)
i don't mean that the systems themselves were junk (for the time period) but understandably mid-late 70's developed radar SAMs will have a great deal of problems with ground clutter rejection due to insufficient computer processing power. this enabled the argentines to ingress at low altitude against ships with at least some hope of success. a russian destroyer in '89 is going to have way less problems with that as it's both later and they are equipped differently with more focus on IR SAMs which don't suffer most of the problems you get with semi-active radar missile launchers.
on the silkworm: it's impressive that such an old system could do that but styxes don't sea-skim (AFAIK) so the argentine attackers did have that advantage.
No sarcasim taken mate, another little known fact was that experimental laser dazzling devices were deployed with the task force, the objective being to shine them in the eyes of attacking pilots. The official line is that they were never used by the RN. Another thing the Falklands did do was really kick start the CIWS market, the US had introduced Phalanx, there was the Anglo-Dutch Goalkeeper system and there was a similar Sov CIWS an AK-630 mount IRRC.
I didnt realise the Sovs swung away from radar guided SAMs in the late 80s TBH, thats interesting.