Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  Generally, this paper is interesting for the readers. However, within the whole work, there is not any UAV features, such as kinetics and/or dynamics which can refer to 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2834515 and 10.1002/asjc.2623. In this context, from the reviewer viewpoint, this manuscript can be at least improved by incoporating UAV kinetics into the countermeasures. In addition, the organization of this paper can be improved by made simulations together to evaluate eventually the performance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is new and deserves study. Research in general is very good. There are some notes to complete the research:

1/ The research relied on imposing many hypotheses, which weakens the research.  Authors must justify these hypotheses accurately and scientifically in the text and throughout all the research.

2/ Some comments on the research writing style have been indicated.

3/ There are some shortcomings in the Figures that have been marked in red.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx