High Precision Pseudo-Range Measurement in GNSS Anti-Jamming Antenna Array Processing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper concerns a signal processing techniques for precise GNSS pseudorange estimation with array antenna under jamming.

In my opinion, the paper must be improved before publication.

First of all, the introduction doesn't extensively explain the theory used in the following part of the paper (SAP or STAP processing are only mentioned and not detailed with formulation). I suggest to improve the part 2 of the paper, finalizing the theoretical formulation.

In the same section the formulation are not clear, for example, w is a vector or a matrix (usually it should be a vector if we are referring to SAP or a matrix if we are referring to STAP). Moreover, some symbols are not described and related to the text, such as NM in eq (11).

Section 3 is not clear due to the lack of introductions (for example what the author means for taps?).

In the paper it is not clear if the proposed method is a STAP or SAP because different claims are in contrast each other and, most important, a detailed theoretical description is not reported (with formulation) and the method is only described with the figure 7.

Probably in Figure 7 there is a refuse, the arrow from the channel A" to the block "Weights update" should start   after the FFT block? It could be more clear with a more detailed description of the method.

Concerning the simulation results, i have to believe on it, but I suggest to improve their  description.

I suggest to the author also to insert in the paper results obtained by the use of real signals, having only simulated results can be not enough for journal publication (is the antenna in figure 1 in the  authors hand? why don't use it?).

Concluding, without a complete and clear description of the background (and more important) of the proposed method, it is also difficult to evaluate the novelty of the paper.

Finally, Figure 13, referred on the text, doesn't exist.

Minors:

I suggest I language check in all the text since some sentences are not clear and some typos are present, e.g.

-line 80: 20 -->[20]

-line 85: 22-->[22]

-line 264 Compare -> Compared?

-line 150: channel -->Channels?

- I don ‘t like the expression it can be known from the figure X, that is used all over the paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The structure of the article is considered and clear. In the introduction, the background and comprehensive review of the problem's literature were presented. The authors present the effect of Space-Time Array Processing (STAP) on Pseudo-Range (PR) accuracy and anti-jamming algorithm with constrained delay. Simulation experiment has been characterized on the basis of interference suppression performance, anti-jamming processing delay, correlation function distortion, software receiver emulation and simulation under non-ideal channel. Results of research have been presented in graphic form. There is no discussion. Conclusions, on the basis of the research, are clear.

Please use the Reference List and CitationsStyle Guidefor MDPI Journals.
References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work (no colon after last author, no quotation marks for title of the article, authors separated using semicolon):

Line 28: reference [7] should be [3] - use the sequence of citations
Line 25: [1][2] should be [1,2]
Line 39: [9]-[11] should be [9-11] etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None