RCS Prediction Using Prony Method in High-Frequency Band for Military Aircraft Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a method RCS prediction optimized that improves prediction results of indirect approach in the high frequency band for military aircraft models. However, the performance comparative for the three predictions methods presented does not give enough rigorous metrics to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Similarly, the authors do not offer a clear methodology from the parameterization model to the simulation to sustain the result presented in Table 2. Simulation time comparison among CST simulation and prediction theories. How about the performance of the proposal compared with the state-of-art methods?

Additionally, are not provided consistently observations and systematic results based in the parameters such as frequency, and total error in terms of the frame data utilized for all the methods (i.e., is the same length data for all the cases in Figures 9-11?). Thus, is not easy to evaluate the qualitative significance of the simulation contribution to affirmative as a simple yet effective a practical application.

The work lack on provides a consistent methodology for the campaign simulation results presented in the figures, authors does not include rigorous figures of merit to demonstrate the effectiveness, in terms of frequency, errors, and runtime calculation.

Also, it is not clear if it is only used a benchmark to simulate some parameterized models using a generic scenario, which can be insufficient on the key contribution of this study for example given in the possibility to scaling the metrics under another interest parameters and characteristics for another prediction methods.

As a recommendation, it is important to highlight and list the contributions of the paper, since the description of the current version is not particularly clear.

Author Response

Response to reviewers1 is in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper correctly describes the introduction, methodology, and results. However, I recommend improving the bibliographic references, since 15 of them are out of date. I also suggest compacting the conclusions section because it is very long and presents irrelevant information.

Author Response

The response to reviewer2 is in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript investigates radar cross section (RCS) prediction using proxy method in high frequency band for military aircraft models. The theoretical idea is well researched and well presented with numerous mathematical expressions. However, there are some clarifications that need to be made before the manuscript can be considered for inclusion in a journal paper publication. 

1. The authors need to discuss the reliability of the data used in the investigation.

2. The majority of literature cited in the manuscript where published over 30 years ago. The authors are encouraged to focus more on recently published papers to ensure that their work is comparable to the current state-of-the-art.

3. The authors need to conduct some sort of experimentation as a way of validating their theoretical work. In the present state, the manuscript may only be considered for conference presentation as journal papers must on report experimental validation. 

4. A section should be included to cover the challenges encountered in the research and the possible solutions.

5. Future opportunities to help improve on the work should also be recommended. 

Author Response

The response to reviewer3 is in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript focuses on different RCS Prediction Methods in high frequency band for Military Aircraft Models. It proposed the idea of using Prony method in high frequency rather than using the conventional Rational Function theory. The simulation results discuss the pros and cons of the proposed idea. The paper has focused on a practical and important topic and the results and conclusion could be fruitful for readers in the field. There are, however, some rooms in the manuscript that need to be addressed by the authors before the paper could be considered for publication in "Aerospace". So, the authors are recommended to go through the following points and to revise their work accordingly. 

- More keywords could be added to the paper to increase its feasibility (e.g., other used prediction methods could be added). 

- The introduction should be extended with a more comprehensive literature review. In other words, what is missing is a critical literature review to justify the necessity of doing this piece of research. (e.g., clarify the research gap, pros and cons of different methods, limitations and constraints of the proposed methods, its relative methods to other publicly available proposals, etc.)

- After describing different techniques, a tabular comparison of them would be very welcomed in the manuscript. The advantages and disadvantages of all methods could be summarized in this table. 

- A flowchart/Pseudocode describing the proposed methodology and the implementation procedure would be welcomed as well.  

Author Response

The response to reviewer4 is in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This revised version shows a significantly improved presentation concerning the recommendations suggested in the previous version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns and the revised version of the manuscript could be considered for publication in my view.