This manuscript proposes a higher-order calibration method for the WindRAD, with the objective of mitigating the non-linear characteristics of the radar measured sigma0, and in turn deriving high-quality winds. The methodology is well described, and the results are quite promising. I think the manuscript may draw common interests from the ocean surface wind community. However,  a few minor questions need to be addressed before publication.

1. Do you use all of the sea surface data in the analysis of Figures 4 and 8? I would like to know how you deal with the quality control and the negative sigma0s.
2. The schematic illustration of HOC in Fig. 3 is fine. However, how do you calibrate each particular sigma0 value according the bias derived from Fig. 3? Is it done in linear space or in dB? Again, how do you deal with the negative sigma0s?
3. The azimuth-dependent bias in Figures 13 and 18 is quite suspicious. Does it exist in both versions of data? What could be the reason for the azimuth-dependent bias? Moreover, are the HOC and NOCant results the same for both versions of data?
4. It would be nice to see an illustration or a table on the HOC and the NOCant results.
5. Page 3, line 68: “correcting for air mass density” should be “correcting for the effect of air mass density”

This work is mainly to calibrate Fan Beam Scatterometer (WindRAD) data using proposed nonlinear calibration technique HOC. Manuscript is well written, however in my view it can be conscised more. 

I have a few comments as following, which may require the explaination. 

At many places in the manuscript, it has been mentioned that issues have been corrected in v2opr, so It is not clear, why V2opr has not been used for whole analysis of sigma0 to apply HOC based calibration, instead of using v1opr which has few drawbacks.

Line 127:  Authors mention that nonlinearity can’t be corrected by NOCant, however plots in the figure suggest that NOCant also may correct the data. One need to check the difference in both corrections.

Line 163: It will be also good to know the differences in wind retrieval for NOCint and HOC

Figure 13a&b: What can be the reasons for HH & VV showing opposite behavior for low incidence angle.

Figure 13 c&d: After applying HOC correction, the correction doesn’t seem to be uniform for all azimuth angles. For both HH&VV, correction seems to improve for azimuth directions above 180 degrees.

Figure 14 suggest that NOCant doesn’t improve the wind retrieval quality as directions retrieval accuracies are almost same. For wind speed also, there is only marginal improvement. Does it mean that even NOCint also would have performed in similar way.

Figure 15: It is not clear, why HOC should be higher for sweet  spot (centre WVCs). Normally at these WVCs, SD should be low.

Line 214: Authors have made a good point that MLE is lowest for HOC with NOCant, whereas the difference between NOCant alone and HOC combined with NOCant is almost same. What can be the reason that it is unlike C band. The nonlinearlty in the sigma0 should be frequency dependent for a particular angle (or range of angles) only.

Line 220: Couldn’t understand the mirroring effect between ascending and ascending. It will be advisable to explain it.