The paper presents a comprehensive study on wind turbine performance assessment using a sensor-augmented aeroelastic modeling approach, specifically focusing on blade erosion. It combines HAWC2 aeroelastic simulations with real-world operational data to identify effective sensors for monitoring blade erosion effects. The study emphasizes the importance of customized sensor selection tailored to specific turbine models and control systems. With some enhancements in detail, this paper could set a strong precedent for future research in wind turbine monitoring systems.

There are several points that require improvement for the paper to meet publication standards. Below are detailed comments and suggestions for enhancing the manuscript.

1. The methodology section contains extensive descriptions of previous studies by other researchers and the authors' past work, which dilutes the focus on the current study's innovations. I suggest that the authors summarize previous studies more concisely to provide a brief background and context. Focus on highlighting the unique contributions and innovations of the current study. Emphasize what distinguishes this work from existing literature.
2. Some sections of the methodology, particularly the simulation settings and test cases, could be expanded to provide more clarity. For instance, more details on the HAWC2 model parameters and the specific conditions simulated would enhance reproducibility. The treatment of SCADA data and the specific algorithms used for analysis (e.g., STL decomposition) should be described in more detail. Elaborate on the simulation settings, including the exact parameters and conditions used in HAWC2, to ensure the study can be replicated by other researchers.
3. One of the main innovations claimed by the authors is the combination of simulation and actual measurement data to identify sensors sensitive to blade corrosion. However, the methodology section, particularly Section 2.3, lacks detailed descriptions of this process. I suggest that the authors provide a clear, detailed explanation of how the combination of simulation and measurement data is implemented. Describe the iterative approach mentioned in Section 2.3 in specific terms, outlining each step of the methodology, the tools used, and the rationale behind the chosen methods. This will enhance the transparency and reproducibility of your study.
4. Section 2.3 of the methodology appears to be incomplete or missing crucial details. Statements like “The primary objective of this section is the rigorous evaluation of numerous sensors' potential” and “The work, therefore, employs a comprehensive methodology that employs an iterative approach” are vague and lack substantive information. Please confirm the completeness of Section 2.3 and ensure it contains all necessary details. Specifically, provide a step-by-step guide on the rigorous evaluation of sensors, including the criteria for sensor selection, the process of integrating simulation with real-world data, and examples of how this methodology was applied in your study. Clarify any ambiguous statements to improve the reader's understanding.
5. The results are presented with limited interpretation and explanation. Several key findings are stated without providing sufficient context or analysis to help the reader understand their significance. The information in some figures in the article is too dense, such as Figure 9 and 15, and the description of the figure information is insufficient before and after some figures, preventing the reader from fully understanding the relevance of the figures and how to draw relevant conclusions. The text arrangement of some figures in this paper needs to be optimized, such as Figure 12, A1, and A2.

This article showcases a practical application of wind turbine blade erosion detection using a combination of aero-elastic simulations and real-world SCADA data. To me the article definitely has the potential to meet the journal's scientific standards but in its current form the balance between application and scientific content leans too much towards the application and in some sections the language even tends to be a bit promotional

Hence a more complete description of the methodology is essential for a proper evaluation of the scientific merit of the article.

More specifically: I agree to the comments of the first reviewer but in addition the following recommendations should be considered

• The current study can hardly be understood without knowing the previous reference presented in Malik and Bak (2024a). A brief summary of their key results would be beneficial for readers unfamiliar with that reference.

• While I understand the need for confidentiality regarding specific turbine and site details, some generic information, such as the turbine size class (e.g. multi-megawatt offshore) is essential to put the findings in context and understand the general validity of the approach. Perhaps the interpretation of the results differs significantly for a study involving kilowatt-scale turbines compared to multi-megawatt offshore installations? I now read between the lines in section 2.1.2 that the turbines are off-shore and in the conclusions I read that they are Multi MW. Please disclose this information upfront. This is also needed to interpret the absolute numbers in section 2.1.1. (outer 9 m of the blade, roughness numbers etc).
  
  Related to this: What is a typical Reynolds number? To me the aerodynamics of erosion depends heavily on the Reynolds number.

• The study relies on results from HAWC2 simulations. While HAWC is a well-validated aeroelastic modeling tool, a scientific sound approach requires an assessment of validity and possible limitations of the modelling approach for the current situation. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand whether any known inaccuracies identified in e.g. Boorsma_2024_J._Phys._Conf._Ser._2767_022006.pdf (dtu.dk) might impact the findings. The same holds for the accuracy of the airfoil aerodynamic model used, particularly bearing in mind the potentially high Reynolds numbers (above 10 million) for which limited validation of modelling approaches for eroded airfoil have been carried out

• Justify (or reframe from) unfounded statements to avoid a tendency of  subjectivity. For example, line 53 states “this study leverages the turbines’ own wind speed anemometers, which are often overlooked due to uncertainties”. I think many people do see the value of turbine anemometers for various applications so please justify this statement or add a more objective phrasing e.g: "The importance of turbine anemometers, to support erosion detection has been demonstrated” or something like that.
• Check whether all concepts been introduced and put in context, e.g. what is Shell A and Shell B  at line 116. Also the partial and complete coverage of 4.5 m is not placed in context.
• The text should be checked on clarity, completeness and readability. For instance, the vertical axis of Figure 9 currently lacks a label specifying the quantity. Additionally, the numerous abbreviations throughout the text are confusing. It would be helpful to include a list of all abbreviations with their definitions.

By addressing these points and the points of the other reviewer, the authors will deliver a strong practical contribution to the important field of erosion detection where at the same time the journal's scientific standards are met.