Hydrographic Inspection Using a USV of a Harbour Bottom Deepened by the Periodic Actuation of SAR Vessel Propellers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper performs a hydrographic inspection using USV of a harbour bottom deepened by periodic actuation of SAR vessel propellers. In general, this methods seems interesting and come comments are given as follows:

1. The abstract section is a little lengthy and needs to be condensed to 4-5 sentences. The significance and difficulties of the research are described in one sentence at the beginning, followed by the proposed method of the paper, and the last sentence of the paper is explained by the experimental verification.

2. The table needs to be all unified style, can be used in the form of a three-line table. At the same time, the data in the table needs to be explained, and it is only displayed in the table without description.

3. The equations in Section 2.3 require some explanation and an explanation of their role in the measurement.

4. In the second section, there is a part about the use of USV measurement methods, which needs to be supplemented to further understand the principle and significance of measurement.

5. The figures in the paper need to be re-inserted; for example, figure 9 is obviously fuzzy. Clear pictures help to add professionalism to the paper.

6. The results in Section 3 contain only pictures and a little explanation. The interpretation of the results needs to be detailed and comparative analysis to verify the feasibility of the proposed method.

7. The discussion part of Section 4 can be combined with the results of Section 3, and combined with the previous opinion, the analysis and discussion of the results can be more specific.

8. The conclusion part needs to be reorganized. The first paragraph is a concise summary of the research objectives, methods and results of this paper, and the second paragraph is the future work that can be carried out to solve the shortcomings of the research in this paper and the goals that can be achieved.

9. Some automatic control methods for unmmaned vehicles are suggested to be disuccsed in the literature review part, e.g., A* Algorithm, A Robust and Efficient UAV Path Planning Approach for Tracking Agile Targets in Complex Environments, Machines 10 (10), 931.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents a practical application of Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) for hydrographic inspection of a harbor bottom. The main objective is to demonstrate the reliability of USVs equipped with hydrographic equipment for urgent tasks in surveying the bottom of water areas where standard ships cannot be deployed. The paper is well written, and the results effectively demonstrate the suitability of the USV equipment for this task, highlighting its practical benefits. Nonetheless, the following remarks should be addressed by the authors:

-          What are the novelties and contributions of this study since USV has been used for this purpose for a long time;

-          The vehicle, USV's GNC equipment, and hydrographic instruments are cots, with a few modifications introduced by the research group. These modifications can be of interest to a broader audience, and it is worth describing in more detail, especially the bathymetric equipment used in this study;

-          The main contribution is the hydrographic mapping, but this part is described by a simple formula without major explanations. In my view, the contribution of the paper is its didactic character. Please explain the X and Y coordinate system expressed in mete with 10⁶ power in the graph;

-          A description of the Matlab program to process the raw data could also be interesting, as well as the general characteristics of the measured parameters (sensor noise, etc..).

 

The above points are suggestions to make the paper more robust regarding its main contributions and innovations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Make a comparison between Your results and other results from literature.

Specify more clearly which are the results obtained experimentally and which are those obtained by simulation.

The notations in figure 5 are in Polish.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires significant revisions and additions before being re-evaluated. Below are the comments and requests:

1) In section 1, the objectives must be more detailed, referring to the open points relating to the specific topic.

2) In Section 2, all the experimental setups and measurement equipment used must be described in detail, providing the reader with every useful detail.

3) Section 4 must be significantly integrated by reporting a summary of the results obtained, specifying the strengths and innovations of the scientific work compared to the scientific literature, and also through a comparative table.

At the moment it is not specified whether the objectives indicated in Section 1 have been achieved, and the scientific value of the results obtained compared to the state of the art, significant aspects for an article in a scientific journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reviewer thanks the authors for the considerations given to improve the clarity of the paper. In my judgment, the paper can be published in its current form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the additions made by the authors in the review phase, all comments and requests have been satisfied; the article may be accepted for publication in its current form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required