A Robust Impulsive Control Strategy of Supercavitating Vehicles in Changing Systems

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents some original results on the control of a supercavitating vehicle based on a model suggested in reference 5.

Although the control task is limited to slight pitch changes and the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy is tested by means of simulation only, the results could be of interest to a fairly large audience.

Therefore, in this reviewer opinion, the paper is worth publishing.

However this reviewer would prefer a more mathematical formulation of the theorems and their proofs. As they are now, they look like assertions and argumentations.

Overall, the paper is clearly written. Yet, some misprints and solecisms are present which should be corrected before possible publication.

Last and least, the symbols in formula (1) need be defined.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

We attached the response to your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper develops controllers to control a supercavitating vehicle. To handle this changing system,  impulsive controllers are used. Simulation results are provided.
Here are my comments:
- The practical use of the given theoretic results should be clearly motivated.
- More comparison with existing results should be discussed. Moreover the bibliography should be improved, to give the readers more overview  the following should be helpful: Robust control of a small-scale supercavitating vehicle: From modeling to testing. Ocean Engineering, Volume 160, 412-424, 2018;  Observer-based robust fuzzy control for vehicle lateral dynamics. American Control Conference, 4664-4669, 2006 ; Road curvature estimation for vehicle lane departure detection using a robust Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy observer. Vehicle System Dynamics 51 (5), 581-599, 2013; Event-triggered control for active vehicle suspension systems with network-induced delays. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2018.
- In the conclusion, authors could highlight some interesting issues as further works (control and fault diagnosis problems).
- English language should more polished and some typos corrected.
The proposed paper contains publishable results and can be accepted for publication provided the revised version takes into account these comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

We attached the response to reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper contents are improved and comparisons are introduced. Indeed, the paper can now be accepted.