General comments：

This manuscript presents a data fusion method to obtain the complete wind speed profiles with the combination observation of the CDL, RWP and AWS. And this method was applied and showed good performance during the landfall process of Super Typhoon Doksuri. As CDL, RWP and AWS are widely deployed in the southeastern coastal areas of China, I think this method has practical value and broad application prospects in the wind field observation within the typhoon boundary layer. The main topic of this manuscript is of interest to the readership of AMT. I recommend this manuscript for publication after addressing the following comments.

1. The core of this paper lies in the data fusion of CDL and RWP. How is the wind profile retrieved in the transition zone (or the overlapping data region) of the data? Has an assessment been conducted to evaluate the consistency of wind speed and direction observations between the two instruments?

2. In section 4.3, you mentioned that the traditional models cause a large error (up to 73%) to describe the exact wind speed profiles during and after the typhoon’s passage, especially when the wind speed is almost constant with height or when wind shear exists. How was the 73% error calculated? It would be better to give a more detailed error analysis.

3. In Line 271 to line 272, you mention that the detection range of the CDL decreased sharply affected by the high precipitation. Have you tried to utilize other techniques, such as raindrop size distribution measurements, to mitigate the impact of precipitation on the performance of CDL?

4. In this manuscript, the evolution characteristics of the vertical profiles of horizontal wind speed and direction at two stations were analyzed. Have you attempted to utilize multi-station observations to investigate the three-dimensional structure of the typhoon, such as vortex characteristics?

5. Is it possible to give a a further discussion for conclusion (4) in the manuscript regarding on the findings on wind speeds of “15 m/s to 25 m/s on 28 July..maximum wind speed values of 51.25 m/s and 52.34 m/s..” An explanation of the such findings’ significance would be more interesting for the readerships instead of list the information.

Specific comments：

1. Line 106, change “labeled” to “labelled”.

2. Line 196, it would be better that “980” and “hPa” list in the same line.

3. Line 220, remove “of two instruments”.

4. Line 240, change “wind shear layers appeared at 600 m during 11:00 LST ~ 13:00 LST and 1100 m during 12:00 LST ~ 13:00 LST” to “wind shear layers appeared at 600 m and 1100 m during 11:00 LST ~ 13:00 LST and 12:00 LST ~ 13:00 LST, respectively”.

5. Figure 6: please explain why not to set the intercept to be zero in the linear regression model since two exact same physical quantities are compared? What are the physical significance of these two intercept individually?