A Low RCS and Array-Insensitive FSS Wideband Radome
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have presented a paper on a low RCS, array insensitive FSS wideband radome. The results are in good agreement with the infinite array, showing broadband transmission performance in both C-band and X-band. Moreover, the designed radome exhibits good array element insensitivity and far-field scattering reduction characteristics, and achieves significant in-band and out-of-band RCS accurate reduction under the premise of constant antenna radiation performance. Below are my comments.
The literature review part in introduction is limited. Authors may expand it highlighting gaps in literature.
Mention references for equation presented wherever possible.
Figure 6, express 3D plots in dBi scale.
In figure 7(b); replace vertical axis label “Reflection Coefficient / dB” with “|S11| (dB)”. Similarly, for fig 9(a).
Double equations and paper for typos and grammatical mistakes.
The work is interesting and attracts the attention of researchers.
Double equations and paper for typos and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors developed a four-notch shaped FSS radome insensitive to the number of array elements is designed based on the multi-layered medium Green's function, and the transflective coefficient of the finite radome is derived.The work seems interesting to me. However, the comments below should be addressed before further processing.
a) The literature review is technically weak to justify the work. The following papers are suggested.
i) Z Xing et al. A Low-RCS and Wideband Circularly Polarized Array Antenna Co-Designed With a High-Performance AMC-FSS Radome
ii) S Shao et. al. A Novel Wideband FSS Radome with Loaded Inductors
iii) W Yong et al. Design and Characterization of the Fully Metallic Gap Waveguide-Based Frequency Selective Radome for Millimeter Wave Fixed Beam Array Antenna
iv) Oluwole et al. Design of a simple circularly polarised dual‐frequency reconfigurable microstrip patch antenna array for millimetre‐wave applications
etc.
2) Important and adequate references are missing. Particularly in Section 2. Equations that are not new must be properly cited.
3) Is the "comma" in the topic important?
4) Some scientific english editing are required. For instance, 20dB is not correct, but 20 dB is correct. etc.
5) The parameters in the Table 1 should be defined accordingly.
In all, the paper has merit and potential.
The english seems ok, but required minor edit.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Good idea is presented. The simulation results are promising. But the simulation results are not verified on physical experiments. The figure "Schematic diagram of the bow measurement method." has confused me. Because the text does not contain any information about the measurements, but here is the measurement scheme (Fig. 3). This is a high-quality open access journal, therefore, the simulation results should be compared with measurements, or at least with some alternative methods, perhaps analytical methods, that allow us to assume that the simulation results are correct.
There is no information, what kind of software was used for the simulation. The 3D model in the software environment is not provided, therefore it is complicated to evaluate how much effort is added into simulation.
Something is not matched in Fig.1 and Table 1. According to the figure L1 should be bigger then L2. R should be smaller then L1. But in table it is opposite. Is the dimensions in the Table 1 provided correctly?
It is not fully understandable how the presented detailed mathematics of the models is related to the simulation using the method of moment. Did you write the software yourself or use a commercial package?
The English and style are really good for most of the article, but there are some areas that really need improvement. For example, (lines 30-34 ) the sentence is wrong constructed. Maybe better to use two separated sentence. There are similar sentences in the article which should be corrected.
There are quite a few places where spaces between words or measurement values and units are missing. There are places where a comma is given instead of a point (for example line 219).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript presents an innovative solution for RCS reduction based on an FSS radome. The overall quality of the paper is good and it includes an interesting design method based on MoM. The latest makes, in my opinion, the paper suitable for publication in this journal. However, several aspects could be undertaken in order to further enrich the work in its future final form. Among them:
- More comments about the simulation software and configuration used to obtain the results presented in Sections 3 and 4 could be added.
- More extensive theoretical explanations and / or references can be provided in the introduction to better present the paradigm of antenna miniaturization. Particularly, the sentence "in practical engineering, when the number of metasurface arrays is small, the existence of edge truncation effect will seriously affect the frequency response characteristics when the number of metasurface arrays is all." could be better explained and supported by a valid reference.
- Some details about the profile of the RCS of the antenna with the radome at normal incidence can be provided. Is there any justification for the fluctuations of the blue curve in Figure 11 a) ?
- What would be the performance of the proposed radome for another kind of antenna? The author could provide some insights about the versatility of the proposed design.
- Would it be interesting to consider other arrangements of the radome apart from the proposed V-shaped ridge structure?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have responded to the comments effectively.
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments have been addressed.
minor editing is required
Reviewer 3 Report
Too bad there is no physical experiment. On the other hand, the article has been slightly corrected and is now better understandable. The article could be accepted.
Still there are some places to improve. Missing dots or not necessary space between last word of the sentence and the dot. But these are small things that could be quickly fixed.
