  We reply to the Comment of T. K. Kjeldsen and L. B. Madsen [e-print
arXiv:physics/0508213] and acknowledge their criticism related to imperfect
composition of our model 3sigma_g molecular state [V. I. Usachenko and S.-I.
Chu, Phys. Rev. A 71, 063410 (2005)]. However, we cannot agree with the authors
suggesting this critique also as an irrefutable argument and/or evidence in
support and justification of their opposite and incorrect (viz. inconsistent
with relevant experiment) orientation dependence of N2 ionization rate
calculated within the velocity gauge version of molecular strong-field
approximation. We disclose the actual reason of the contradiction and
demonstrate that appropriately composed 3sigma_g state (modified according to
the Comment's critique) rather confirms the alternative earler calculation [A.
Jaron-Becker, A. Becker and F. H. M. Faisal, Phys. Rev. A 69, 023410 (2004)]
suggesting correct orientation dependence of N2 ionization, contrary to
respective results of the Comment's authors applying the same approach and
procedure of 3sigma_g composition.
