A Simplified Panel Method (sPM) for Hydrodynamics of Air Cushion Assisted Platforms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a hydrodynamic formulation that deals with the behaviour of a floating structure with a cavity with air trapped. This problem is similar in nature to the situation of air cushion vehicles and the hydrodynamics have common aspects with floating oscillating water columns that also have a volume of entrapped water. Therefore, comparison and discussion of similarities and differences in those types of formulations is relevant.
A reference worth consulting is
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2021.08.018
where these aspects are dealt with and references can be found to other relevant papers. Furthermore, that paper also formulates the non-linear problem and thus the present paper can discuss the limitations of not including non-linear terms in the formulation.
Finally, the reference list is based on Chinese journals and Chinese authors and this needs to be changed as it is not justified that papers in this journal are not based on international literature references. Furthermore, the references in the text are wrongly cited ad the initials of the authors should not be included.
Author Response
Regarding the responses to your comments and those of several other reviewers, I have compiled them in a cover letter and added them to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have proposed what they call ‘a simplified panel method’ for the hydrodynamic analyses of air cushion assisted platforms. While comparing their numerical results on the RAOs of an example air-cushion assisted platform with existing experimental and not-simplified numerical results, they have shown that their results agree fairly well with the existing ones.
The proposed simplified numerical method may be useful for practical purposes, but, as a journal paper, I would say, the proposed method just ignore some non-relevant coefficients/terms in the exact motion equations and shows that the obtained results compare fairly well with the existing experimental and non-simplified numerical results, and that’s all the authors have done. In other words, the proposed manuscript is not significant enough to be published as a journal paper.
Since the comments I mentioned above are not the matter of revision, I regret but I judge the proposed manuscript should be rejected.
Author Response
Regarding the responses to your comments and those of several other reviewers, I have compiled them in a coverletter and added them to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Extensive changes have been implemented and the paper has improved.
Please note that when you add one reference to the text a space needs to exist between a word and the parenthesis with the number of the reference. In many occasions such space is missing in the text
Reviewer 2 Report
The problems I indicated in my first review still remain as they are in the revised manuscript as well, as I said in my first review that they are not the matter of revision. Therefore, I cannot help but judge that the revised manuscript should be rejected.
The problems I indicated in my first review still remain as they are in the revised manuscript as well, as I said in my first review that they are not the matter of revision. Therefore, I cannot help but judge that the revised manuscript should be rejected.
