An Approach to Air-to-Surface Mission Planner on 3D Environments for an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors propose a practical Approach to ASM Planner on 3D environments for an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle. The proposed study is very interesting to this Journal at completely fulfills its scope. Some comments to improve this manuscript are the following:
- The introduction section must include a table that summarizes the main literature approaches since this table helps readers understand easily the contribution of this research.
- Nomenclature is ok, however, it must be located at the end of the paper following the Journal rules.
- The proposed approach effectively shows their efficiency regarding trajectory tracking; however, what about energy consumption since to avoid enemy weapons possible trajectories cover long distances?
All the simulation scenarios are enough to demonstrate the quality of the proposed approach. In my opinion, this paper can be accepted after minor corrections.
Good Job.
Author Response
The authors have revised the paper appropriately reflecting the request of the reviewers, and are deeply grateful for the detailed review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The content of the article is consistent with the scientific area of the Journal Sensors. The subject raised by the authors is current and so far rarely noticed by other authors publishing in this area.
The paper has an original, scientific character: for a better clarification, please edit your paper as follows:
- Enlarge the Introduction with current results reported in the world and Europe
- define better the scientific results
- Improve the reference list
Author Response
The authors have revised the paper appropriately reflecting the request of the reviewers, and are deeply grateful for the detailed review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In general, in my opinion the article is interesting, well written and worth publication. The methodology is proper. To improve the paper quality, I suggest:
- Please, discuss wider properties of used control system (page 12). You gave information about references [29], but in my opinion some details would be valuable (static and dynamics properties of the control system, how wind turbulences influence control quality, system limitations).
- Please, provide some information about influences of wind turbulences (limitations) (chapter 6).
- You estimated time of computer calculations (e.g. lines 295, 253), but it depends on several factors (hardware, software...). Could you present some details?
- List of used abbreviations would make an article more reader friendly. In the article there is "Nomenclature", but it presents only list of symbols.
- Please, check exactly list of references. Data are not complete (e.g. positions: [14] - vol?pp?, [30]- journal/publisher?,vol?pp? 9-publisher?
Author Response
The authors have revised the paper appropriately reflecting the request of the reviewers, and are deeply grateful for the detailed review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Congratulations to the authors on an interesting research
The article as well as the methods described within seem fine.
What I would definitely do is to analyze the energy consumption when using this route planning method, and additional optimization in terms of energy consumption.
Most important change:
It would be interesting to see the experimental results on a real aircraft. As title begins with word "Practical", please change the title, because you did not shown how this approach works in real world, only in extensive simulations.
Some remarks:
Line 47 - put a space before the brackets.
Lines 54 and 55, put a space before the reference.
Generally correct these spacing errors throughout the text.
Figure 5. increase fonts and graph, in this form is not legible
Figure 6. Slightly increase the font to be better readable, increase the image quality (it is possible to put tiff of higher resolution)
Generally where you have data graphs slightly increase the font for better visibility.
In general, the proposed method seems fine and there are no major objections to the article. After additional polishing of the text, I suggest acceptance.
Author Response
The authors have revised the paper appropriately reflecting the request of the reviewers, and are deeply grateful for the detailed review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
