Effect of Waves on the Behavior of Emergent Buoyantly Rising Submarines Using CFD
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest accepting the paper with minor revision in the numerical aspects.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and comments . We have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present work on rising stability of submarines, focusing on the effects of waves on the outcome. Although interesting, the described approach does not provide sufficient insight into the credibility of the method, and the approach does not discuss the influence of the initial condition (e.g. random realization of the wave train) on the results. Therefore, all outcome can be attributed to that specific wave train and might be not representative for the trends that were sought.
Also, the numerical uncertainty of the results are not discussed and quantified and some of the results seem to be influenced by it. A careful and formal uncertainty estimation is recommended to provide more reliability to the study.
The setup of the problem is insufficient in detail. It seems that one of the major drivers in the dangers of rising stability (ie excessive heel angles during or shortly after emergence) are not properly dealt with, due to the neglect of the water egress out of the casing when reaching the surface. However, the introduction seems to hint that this aspect is dealt with, which seems misleading.
Due to some of these flaws, I have not read the complete article, so any decisions on the actual results and conclusion are pending and may be added after a possible revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of Waves on the Behavior of Emergent Buoyantly Rising Submarines using CFD” (ID: applsci-955308). These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is interesting and has practical significance. Comments:
+ Section 2.3 - Are the authors referring to Stokes wave? If so, there is a typo - "Stokes" not Stocks
+ Table 1 does not contain the centre of mass anywhere. Also, it is recommended to include the description of each of those symbols for ease of reading.
+ The details of the CFD study could be summarized in a tabular form for ease of reading.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and comments . We have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
