The paper is overall interesting and well organized. Please try to improve it following the comments below:

• The authors need to cite paper doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2265/4/042008, also authored by them. The paper has some portions which are very similar to those of the one under consideration. Some figures are also identical. The authors need to clearly state which content is novel and which is not. As a general recommendation, results need to be repeated only when they bring added value to the new publication in terms of clarity or completeness. Too similar figures should be avoided.
• Please state which version of FAST (or OpenFAST?) has been used.
• Uncertainty estimation on experimental data could bring some added value.
• It seems that the authors did not use a yaw control (is this the case?). If so, I would suggest plotting the wind direction trend vs time to demonstrate to the reader that yawed functioning conditions are not affecting the results.
• The English form has some minor flaws. The most apparent one is “performances” that should be singular in technical writing. A revision by a native English speaker is suggested.
• The explanation for the discrepancies seen in Figure 14 is a little bit vague. Please try to better motivate the loss of performance in the below-rated region. Could this be associated with aerodynamics?
• As a general impression, the paper is very “descriptive”, i.e., shows good results, but probably lacks a little bit of a critical perspective. I would recommend revising the final part of the paper in a way that could provide to the reader a more critical insight for example on the validity of the methods used for future studies, on the source of uncertainties in the real environment or in some prescriptions to manage wind turbines in multi-purpose platforms.

The manuscript provides an experimental validation of the design of a large-scale wind turbine model installed on a floating multipurpose platform. The paper is clear, relevant, and scientifically sound. Some questions/comments are added below to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

- The paper could say a few more words on the overall advantages/disadvantages of the multiplatform concept. For example, are there any studies that showed the potential benefits of combining floating wind and wave energy converters from a system point of view? And also with aquaculture?

- Line 39: The paper mentions that wave-tank tests have been performed at ECN. Can the authors comment on how the present 1:15 model scale results compared to the small-scale results? This would help support the statement that “large-scale models are technologically very similar to prototypes and can reduce scaling effects”. Alternatively, the authors can point to a reference showing this.

- Page 3 Line 82: the choice of the airfoil is justified by the fact that it is suitable for low Reynolds number applications. However, the environment here is more realistic (i.e. higher Re) than in a wind-tunnel environment. Can you give the typical Re values encountered here and explain why the low-Re airfoil was still a good choice?

- Page 4 L 122. The goal is to investigate the effect of floating motions on the turbine power production and structural health. However, because the platform is quite large compared to conventional floating wind turbines, the motions are expected to have a much smaller impact on the turbine. Can the authors comment on how the floating motions of this multiplatform differ from those of a floating wind turbine without aquaculture/WEC? Also, are scaling effects, i.e. between full scale and a 1:15 model, expected to be larger/smaller/identical for a floating wind turbine when the floating platform is smaller?

- Pages 7-8. Can the authors provide more information on the post-processing, i.e. filter used, decrement procedure? Alternatively, the scripts could be openly shared so that the procedures can be reproduced.

- Fig 15: What is the peak at around 3.7Hz?

Typos

Line 348: Once that --> Once

Line 371 & 427: punctuation missing