Statistical Theory of Optimal Functionally Deterministic Signals Processing in Multichannel Aerospace Imaging Radar Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

How the delay time changes during the movement of the aircraft, and how it affects the performance, justification required.

The authors have taken the width of each individual beam in the fan , and how it can be determined by another approach rather than the linear dimensions of the antenna.

Justify the statement ‘To generate the synthesized antenna design, the proposed modification of the technique also requires coherent assembly and precise phase tracking.’

What is the motivation for combining the advantages of several terrain observation modes and fully complying with modern trends in the creation of cognitive radars with the possibility of restructuring the antenna pattern in space and adaptive receiving of reflected signals

The author should depict the flow graph to illustrate the need for the proposed approach.

 The significant trends of the simulation results should show.

 

Comparison with recent studies and methods would be appreciated.

 The introduction section can add the issues in the current work context and how proposed algorithms/approaches can overcome this.

 The results of analyses should be presented in a consistent and explicit form using graphs and tables.

  What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

 Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?

 Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

A comparison with recent studies and methods would be appreciated.

The conclusion should state the scope for future work.

The comparison of different methods using clear graphs should be explained.

More statistical analysis of data should be performed.

 

Author Response

The response to the reviewer’s comments are given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written. 

While the method developed herein is mathematically valid, there should be a clear description of the problem statement and the key innovation of the paper.

Author Response

The response to the reviewer’s comments are given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presented for review is characterized by a correct structure and clear graphic form. The reader may feel unsatisfied after reading Chapter 1. The introduction seems too short, moreover, it presents too much abbreviated and compressed literature review. This is especially true of the passage: "Such methods should be based on the existing achievements of the statistical theory of optimization of signal processing in measuring systems presented in the works of Falkovich S. E. [1-4], Tikhonov V. I. [5-6], Bakut P. A. [7], Amiantov I. M. [8], Kotelnikov V. A. [9], Gutkin L. S. [10], Levin B. R.[11], Van Tries G. [12], Middleton D. [13], Shirman Ya.D. [14] and others, as well as in the results of the statistical synthesis of coherent and incoherent images in SAR, specified in the works of Kondratenkov G. S. [15], Reutov A. P. [16], Karavaev V.V. [17], Sazonov V. V. [17], Antipov V. N. [18], Volosyuk V. K. [19], Moreira A. [20, 21], Reigber A. [22], Charvat G. L. [23] et al.".

The second chapter should begin with a brief introduction, only to be followed by Chapter 2.1 - exactly as it was done in Chapter 3. Of course, this is a typical editorial matter and different approaches are encountered.

The paper presents a rich mathematical basis, which, due to the limited review time, was not reviewed in depth. I hope that the Authors have made every effort to present the formulas correctly.

Chapter 3 may at first seem too divided, I have in mind subsections 3.5.1-3.5.5 (3.5.5 is incorrectly labeled as 3.5.3, and is again incorrectly followed by section 3.5 instead of, I presume, 3.6). After another look at the work, however, it should be recognized that such a detailed division allows to logically separate parts of the text from each other. I recommend that the images presented in Figure 3 be placed at the same angle.

The literature list, although very extensive, as indicated earlier, raises some concerns. To state again, the achievements presented in these papers are characterized too briefly, using citation in the style of [32-35].

Author Response

The response to the reviewer’s comments are given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx