Both reviewers have requested very substantial revisions. In particular of concern is that the reviewers note that there is no substantial discussion on future directions, have identified some other missing sections and have identified some similarities of some of the material with other published reviews. This would usually be grounds for rejection, however I also note that the reviewers both find value in the work, hence I will instead recommend major revisions on the assumption that these will be substantial in nature.

Although the authors agreed to make some changes to the manuscript such as the new section on SAR applications, data assimilation, SWOT etc the answers to provided by the authors to some of the other reviewer comments are not always convincing. For example the response to reviewer #1 comment 3 does not adequately explain why this information is not to included in the discussion. I do not agree that the focus means that this information is irrelevant. Even if you discuss what data has been used for you will still need to provide the necessary technical background information in the review for the reader to make an informed judgement on the applications. In addition the authors respond "Due to our interest on applications, we only mention a particular satellite when discussing its use within a paper", which to me is inadequate in a field dominated by several different platforms and sensors and the interest is in how the various satellites fit with the various applications. Although the authors respond to reviewer #2's comments on detail, I believe even further detail is required in a revised manuscript, with more detailed descriptions and analyses and more drawing together of the information to summarise the most important points. Please consider this carefully. A thorough review with further analysis of published work, platforms/sensors/applications in tables and diagrams might be of assistance in some places. Please also take heed of the request for a restructure and the need for more illustrations and diagrams to support your discussion.