Comments on "A physical optics correction for backscattering from curved surfaces" and "An efficient method to compute spurious end point contributions in PO solutions" [with reply]

Comments on two related papers by Gupta et al. (ibid., vol.AP-35, no.5, p.553-631, May 1987 and ibid., vol.AP-35, no.12, p.1426-35, Dec. 1987) are made. The commentor states that the usual reason for preferring physical optics (PO) over geometrical optics (GO) in application to curved surfaces is to avoid a numerical search for a specular point. The evaluation of the end-point contributions, however, also requires a numerical search, this time for the shadow boundaries. It would therefore be inconsistent to try to remove the above contributions if the PO procedure is used. Thus the entire discussion of the redundant end point contributions seems to be equally redundant. The authors address the comments and defend their work.<
>