Numerical Study on Parameters of the Airborne VLF Antenna by Quasi-Stationary Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents in a detailed manner the various aspects of numerical analysis of the kinematics and dynamics of an aircraft-trailed VLF antenna wire. A quasi-stationary computational model was introduced, providing fast and accurate results with numerous possible modifications and parameter changes. The results are very well presented and give a very good insight in the overall topic of an aircraft-trailed antenna system.

A few comments/questions regarding the manuscript (with line numbers indicated):

89-92: Do the defined force unit vectors define the position of the iteration points along the wire in the chosen coordinate system (the coordinate system of the aircraft's trajectory)?

94-95 and 97-99: The sentences describing the computation process could be reformed (e.g. 'The residual errors are then compared...' etc.).

106-108 and 112-113: Some of the parameters (d, A, rho, l, r) require a definition shortly after they are introduced.

125-130: Technical text, can be removed.

135: What is the definition of CdroA? (Similar comment to 106-108 and 112-113).

138: Is 'd' the wire diameter?

Figures 3, 4, 16 and 23 would greatly benefit from slight enlargement.

164-165: How were the H and R values defined?

168-169: This could be inserted where the described parameter appears for the first time (135).

177: How is the 'verticality' parameter calculated?

219: Did you mean 'parabolically'?

225: literature14 = [14]

Figure 12 looks like Figure 11, most likely an error in figure insertion.

261-262: An unfinished sentence?

328: How are the wind profiles/gusts included in eqs. (2)-(5)? (V = V +/- v)?

332: Is '5' a reference?

386-387: The sentence appears slightly unclear.

 

Thank you!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review! Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a sound work viewing its results. Its only issue is that its novelty is not stated clearly. Specifically, the authors state that the literature models lack because "the calculation based on those transient dynamic models was a very time-consuming process and still does not give the best design point [19]". So I have two comments for the authors to answer.

1) The solution time is essential if it is a requirement for a on-the-spot decision. However, in the paper it is not clear how the proposed Quasi-Stationary model manages this time reduction. my guess is because the solutions are derived mathematically and them estimated instead of numerically solved. An explanation would be useful.

2) What is the best design point that [19] misses that the proposed model actually offers? An example would be helpful.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed review !  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, authors have presented the analysis of the influence law of the relevant parameters and physical properties of the drogue and the towline, the flight conditions, the wind profile and the phase of the flight. Research presented in the paper is interesting and paper is well written. Following are the suggestions to the authors:

1.       Please define the abbreviation ‘VLF’ used in the abstract.

2.       Section numbering for ‘Introduction’ should be corrected as ‘1’. The section numbering for the other sections should also be corrected accordingly.

3.       Year of Ref [1] is missing.

Author Response

Point 1: Please define the abbreviation ‘VLF’ used in the abstract.

Response 1: The abbreviation ‘VLF’ is defined in the abstract.

Point 2: Section numbering for ‘Introduction’ should be corrected as ‘1’. The section numbering for the other sections should also be corrected accordingly.

Response 2: The section numbering has been corrected all the paper.

Point 3: Year of Ref [1] is missing.

Response 3: The year of Ref [1] has been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The numerical analysis has been established and verified the quasi-stationary model of the airborne VLF towed antenna system in this paper.  The results show that the proposed method can be optimized for vertically, crew comfort, fuel economy, and time on station.

Author Response

Thanks for your review

Reviewer 5 Report

The quasi-stationary model of the airborne VLF towed antenna system was developed and validated in this paper. The influence factors of airborne VLF towed antenna systems were then investigated.

Author Response

Thanks for your review

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for addressing the comments and the modifications to the manuscript, in my opinion now it is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review!

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some grammatical mistakes. Some examples are:

com-pare in line 98

represent in line 106 and others should be represents.

Author Response

Point 1: Gammatical mistakes: com-pare in line 98.

Response 1: It has been corrected. The middle separator '-' was generated by an automatic line feed. I am ashamed of my carelessness.

Point 2: Gammatical mistakes: represent in line 106 and others should be represents.

Response 2: I have already revised it, thank you very much for your review!

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed most of the comments in the revised paper. Following are the suggestions to the authors:

1.       In the introduction, VLF abbreviation is used but the full form is not given.

2.       Similarly, for TAC-AMO, the full form of each abbreviation should be given when used first time in the paper.

3.       At one place TAC-AMO is used and at another place TACAMO is used. Please use either ‘TAC-AMO’ or ‘TACAMO’.

Author Response

Point 1: In the introduction, VLF abbreviation is used but the full form is not given.

Response 1: The abbreviation ‘VLF’ is defined in the introduction.

Point 2: Similarly, for TAC-AMO, the full form of each abbreviation should be given when used first time in the paper.

Response 2: The definition of ‘TACAMO’ is added.

Point 3: At one place TAC-AMO is used and at another place TACAMO is used. Please use either ‘TAC-AMO’ or ‘TACAMO’.

Response 3: The abbreviation for ‘Take Charge And Move Out’ is TACAMO, and the separator '-' was generated by an automatic line feed. It has now been corrected. Thanks very much for your review!

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments so I believe the paper is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review!

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have addressed the comments in the revised paper. Paper is acceptable.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review!