Please see the attached file.

This manuscript investigates the impact of Leading Edge Erosion (LEE) on the aerodynamic performance of wind turbines and the overall efficiency of wind farms. The study uses a modeling framework combining LEE damage prediction, aerodynamic loss modeling, and steady-state wind farm flow modeling to simulate the long-term aerodynamic effects of LEE on an offshore wind farm over a period of 10 years.

The research reveals that the Annual Energy Production (AEP) loss was overestimated because while LEE reduces the energy production of individual turbines, it potentially also reduces overall wake losses, an effect not considered when modeling LEE on individual turbines. The study also conducts a Monte-Carlo-based sensitivity analysis to determine which turbines should be repaired first to maximize energy production. The level of erosion damage was generally the governing factor, but specific turbines contributing more to overall energy production should be prioritized in certain cases.

Overall, the research topic and analysis of the manuscript is of a great interest of the wind energy industry. The findings from these simulation studies enhance our understanding of the effects brought by LEE in the period of 10 years. This research contributes valuable insights and guidance for the wind farm maintenance.

The research is well-structured, and the results are clearly presented. However, I noticed that the manuscript can be further improved once the following comments have been addressed:

• I found the abstract did mention some of the critical conclusions drew by this manuscript, such as i) the AEP loss was overestimated up to 7% in previous studies; ii) due to the wake loss effect, there is an optimum repairing strategy for a wind farm to maintain its high productivity.
• The abbreviation AEP standing for the annual energy loss was not introduced with its full name when it first occurs.
• The abbreviation CI (I guess, standing for confidence interval) was not introduced with its full name when it first occurs in the description of Figure 2.
• The description of Figure 2 mentions that the solid line represents the ensemble mean while the label in figure indicates that it is for median, which is confusing. The author should clarify.
• In the text describing Figure 3(a) in line 164, the categorization of aerodynamic losses is not properly referenced. Please list the specific CFD simulations and reviews that the authors are referring to.
• In line 165, the “between” is duplicated.
• I found that Table 1 is not giving much information, should the authors consider removing it?
• The description of Figure 4 is unclear, should the “securities” be replaced by “severities”?
• I found that the Figure 4 is confusing because it is trying to deliver two things: 1) from the root to the tip of the blade, the tendency of erosion is increasing; 2) from the root to the tip of the blade, the lift-to-drag losses are increasing. Are the increasing lift-to-drag losses are dominantly caused by the increasing degrees of erosion? The authors might need to clarify to make the figure clearer.
• In Figure 12 right panel, I found that the color bar is confusing (especially the unit seems to be percentage). It will be good if the authors can clarify on that.

I believe addressing these comments will improve the readability of the manuscript and enhance its contribution to the field. Overall, the research work has done a great contribution to the wind turbine industry.