Air carrier Captain reported the MALSR lighting system at DAL; especially during daylight; does not provide adequate visual cues for SA CAT II instrument approaches. The flight crew; along with other aircraft in the area; had to perform go-arounds for the same approach.

Narrative

Insufficient airport runway lighting system to land from a CAT II SA (Special Authorization) approach. DAL Airport was reporting fog with an RVR of 2200. We were cleared the SA CAT II approach for Runway 13L; mins for this approach are RVR 12/X/3. Briefings and the approach were nominal. Reaching the RA DH of 144 ft. (100 ft. AGL) we couldn't see the runway environment; despite the RVR of 2200; almost twice the mins required for the approach. Executed a go-around and was vectored for another attempt. On the second approach attempt we saw the MALSR lighting at mins and landed. During this time period; several other Company aircraft attempted the approach as well; resulting in go-arounds.This is the second 'real world' ILS CAT II SA approach that I have flown down to mins; the other being at LGA a couple years ago. Both approaches have resulted in uncomfortable landing situations; for the airfield's runway lighting system is not the normal ALSF-II used for such low visibility approaches - hence the SA in the title of the approach. Regular; non-SA CAT II approaches feature an ALSF-II system; which provides the basic means to transition from instrument flight to visual flight for landing. The MALSR lighting system installed at DAL; especially during daylight; did not provide adequate visual cues to safely transition from a CAT II instrument approach to visual landing. One of the principles of risk management is accept no unnecessary risk." Multiple aircraft that morning in DAL executed an approach in IMC down to 100 ft.AGL with inadequate airport runway lighting; thinking they had the mins to safely execute the approach. All of us had to execute a go-around at less than 100 ft. AGL; a high-risk situation. With my experience in our simulators; I don't think the SIM models what we saw in these CAT II SA approaches.Is the CAT II SA approach really worth the risk? I would recommend an in-depth study of these approaches through the lens of risk management. Would a study possibly recommend the elimination of these SA approaches from our OpSpecs? Keep the CAT II approaches to the runways equipped with the appropriate lighting; ALSF-II; which would definitely increase safety and reduce risk?"