A Quasi-Coherent Detection Method Based on Radon–Fourier Transform Using Multi-Frequency-Based Passive Bistatic Radar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explored a quasi-coherent detection method for multi-frequency-based passive bistatic radar. Both the simulated and experimental results  showed that the proposed method had a better detection performance than the existing methods. The reviewer thought that this contribution was interesting and suitable to publish with a proper improvement.

1. In Equation (2), the direct path interference (DPI) term should have a carrier term.  Please confirm it.

2. The detection range is an important quota for a radar. It is better to give the detection range analysis of the proposed method.

3. What are means the EL and UEL in the caption of Figure 7. Please give the full name at the place where it first appeared. In addition, please give the descriptions of getting the results of EL and UEL or cite the corresponding reference. 

-

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments. All the comments were carefully discussed and based on which the manuscript was revised. In the revised manuscript, the comments are responded point by point, and revisions are highlighted in yellow. Please see the attached file and the revised manuscript.

Best regards, 
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English usage is fine. Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments. All the comments were carefully discussed and based on which the manuscript was revised. In the revised manuscript, the comments are responded point by point, and revisions are highlighted in yellow. Please see the attached file and the revised manuscript.

Best regards, 
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The method proposed in this manuscript has some novelty and gains performance improvement. However, the increased processing time is not affordable in practical application. My detailed comments are as follows.  

1.      Rigorous geometrical graph is recommended to explain parameters such as \beta and v_b for easy understanding.  

 

2.      Please use the same colormaps in Figures 15 and 20 to facility comparison.

 

3.      Page 13 Line 375: Since moving targets are usually non-cooperative for the radar, how to get location information before detection?

 

4.      Why use a 2e10^-7 false alarm rate in the field test? Can you extend the analysis on ROC curves in 4.1.2.3 to cover the 10e-7 false alarm rate?

 

5.      How to distinguish the false targets from the real one in Fig 21?

 

6.      According to the results provided in the field test part, the proposed method demands about 35~50 seconds for processing. As the vehicle drives at the velocity about 14m/s, which means the target will be 390~700 meters away from its location when the echoes are collected. Even for the fastest method which takes only about 10 seconds, the target will be about 140 meters away. Can we afford such a delay in practical application?

• English grammar needs improvement

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive comments. All the comments were carefully discussed and based on which the manuscript was revised. In the revised manuscript, the comments are responded point by point, and revisions are highlighted in yellow. Please see the attached file and the revised manuscript.

Best regards, 
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf