Layout Design of Strapdown Array Seeker and Extraction Method of Guidance Information

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) The Abstract is too general and mainly descriptive. In the Abstract the Authors should add some of the most important results obtained in this research (its exact values).

2) Calls on the references – in the paper the Authors have used two different calls on the references – inside the text and as a superscript. Please, use calls on the references inside the text only and be consistent throughout the whole paper.

3) Due to numerous number of abbreviations, symbols and markings used throughout the paper text and in the equations, in the paper should be added a Nomenclature inside which all of the mentioned will be displayed (and explained) in one place. A Nomenclature will be very helpful for increasing paper reading experience.

4) Numerical simulation results are too short – actually only Figures 10 and 11 present simulation results. The results should be extended. I will leave to the Authors how and in which way the extension will be performed. In addition, I believe that the presented results (Figures 10 and 11), as well as results which will be added – should be described in much more detail. Therefore, the results explanation should be extended too.

5) For the numerical simulations performed by the Authors – which are acceptable accuracy and precision ranges? A discussion related to the obtained accuracy and precision ranges should be added in the paper.

6) Line 503 – Chinese symbols are always interesting to see, but they should be removed and replaced with English text. Also, please perform a check of English throughout the paper text – the English is totally understandable and readable, but it can and should be improved in some paper parts and/or sentences.

7) As the Abstract, the Conclusions section should also be improved with the most important obtained results (its exact values). Also the Conclusions seem to be too descriptive and general, without any details obtained in the presented analysis (at least that is my opinion).

Final remarks: This is a very interesting and novel paper. During the revision process, please pay special attention to the enlarging results section – because only two figures I cannot consider as proper presentation of obtained results. After proper revision and enlarging the results section, this paper can be a good candidate for publication recommendation.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Layout Design of Strapdown Array Seeker and Extraction Method of Guidance Information”(ID:1786954)Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper,as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are provided in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Check grammar of the expression "In tackling the root coping strategy of problems ..."

2. "interference of the seeker" or "interference on the seeker" ?

3. Literature citation is not compliant with the journal style. Shouldn't be as a superscript.

4. The literature overview in the introduction is systematic. However previous research regarding array seekers is not highlighted.

5. Please explain better the difference between the 2 layouts in figure 1. It is not clear enough to understand from figure alone.

6. Figure 2 contains a lot of undefined abbreviations.

7. On several occasions in section 2, the authors refer to some "missile" without describing why and how that is related to the subject of the paper. Intuitively it is clear that sensors are mounted on some missile, which is going to seek its target, but that is not explained at all in the Introduction. I think that paper will be easily understood by somebody working on INS, but will be hard for someone not exactly in that field, because of terminology - "strapdown", "seeker", etc. Authors may consider making the introduction a bit more explanatory on terminology as they did for the Kalman filters.

8. What is the difference between Figure 1 and Figure 4 ?

9. M and \lambda in equation 1 not properly explained.

10. Please include citation around the formulas for the EKF in section 4. This is well established knowledge so should be properly cited.

11. Check the font size of the formulas to comply to the journal template.

12. Unknown characters at line 503.

13. Numerical results are interesting. However they have to define more about the conditions of the experiment, not just referring to their previous paper. At least define notation in the figures - what is qa, qe, threshold ? I see them defined with equation (34) for example, but maybe include that explanation in the text next to the figure.

14. Actually the authors don't explain much about the nature of those sensors and how are they simulated.

15. Of course, a central question here is how the Qk and P matrices were selected. Why choose those values and not something else ? Moreover if the Qk = constant, they have to explain why need to use nonstationary vs stationary filter ? I can't see the value of Rk ?

16. When presenting the results will be good to see how the system performs without any filtration if applicable. Also will be advisable to simulate the system for uncertain model parameters to check the robustness. However that is more a question for a future work I guess.

In conclusion, I think the paper contains interesting results, which can be published in the aerospace journal. However it needs some additional effort from the authors to explain and present their achievements better. Also improve the stylistic view and grammar.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Layout Design of Strapdown Array Seeker and Extraction Method of Guidance Information”(ID:1786954)Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper,as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are provided in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

During the revision process, the Authors have considered all my comments and all required elements are added/improved in the paper. The English is improved and all the elements presented in the paper are now clear to anyone. After detail and proper revision, I have no more concerns related to this paper. My congratulations to the Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the revised version of the paper improved its quality and can be published in that form.