Review of the manuscript titled Influence of Secondary Ice Production on cloud and rain properties: Analysis of the HYMEX IOP7a Heavy Precipitation Event

The authors of this manuscript examined the impact of SIP processes, including Hallett-Mossop, drop shattering during freezing and ice-ice collision breakup, in a real case model simulation with a 3D bin microphysics scheme (DESCAM). It is found that including SIP, the model produced slightly higher TWC, and higher ice number concentration for T>-20°C. Adding SIP improvement of the agreement between simulation results and the observations for ice number concentration, TWC, drop number fraction (> 300 microns) as well as size distributions for both ice and liquid at the altitudes where SIP is active (5-6 km). The contributions of each SIP process, based on the current parameterizations, at different altitudes were quantified. Simulated precipitation amounts from both SIP and noSIP runs are generally lower than the observations. The SIP run produced lower precipitation amount, more smaller drops and less larger drops compared to noSIP run. Adding SIP in the simulation will also modify the mass distribution of hydrometeors with more mass for the smaller particle/drop sizes.

The manuscript is well written. The experiment and the results are well presented. The scope of the study aligns well with the focus of the journal. I therefore recommend the publication of this manuscript after addressing the following comments.

General:

Fig 2a: what’s the range of the invalid range of radar signal just above and below the aircraft. I didn’t see any data being masked out in the near-aircraft region.

L139: please also add descriptions of the temperature range and dependency for H-M process.

L176-177: How was the averaging of the model results performed? Only for in-cloud region or the entire zone highlighted in Fig. 1b? Or is there any selection of the areas close to the aircraft track?

Fig. 3: should the shade area of noSIP simulation be added as well?

L200: however, there are values at ~7.5 and 9 km though. One is closer to noSIP, another one much higher than both simulations.

196-198: good point.

Fig. 4: the aircraft observed different altitudes/regions. Some flight legs were continuously in-cloud, and some others sampled updraft like towers especially at higher altitudes. These clouds might be quite different in terms of microphysical properties. Using a single average model profile for the comparison with the aircraft data might miss a lot of detailed information. In the comparison here, I would suggest exploring to have more categorized comparisons depending on different altitudes & cloud types (continued, updrafts, etc.) which might help to better understand the differences between simulations and observations.

L205-206: Need more justifications here. How about the number of drops with sizes between 100 and 300 microns?

L277-278: as mentioned previously, another factor of changed connectiveness for deep convective cases should be discussed as well.

L293-294: For the selection of the model grid, in addition to the similar altitude within ±150m, are the distance to these two stations considered?

L391-393: Good to have this statement as the SIP parameterizations are largely uncertain, even for the Hallett-Mossop process!!

Other comments:

L1: “cloud mixed phase” à mixed-phase cloud.

L4, L6, L39: please add explanation of the acronyms: IOP7a, HYMEX, DESCAM.

L59: “the HYMEX-IOP7a heavy precipitation event” à the HYMEX-IOP7a is a heavy precipitation event

L69: The HYMEX program (HYdrological Cycle in the Mediterranean EXperiment), HYMEX was already explained previously.

L84: the ARAMIS not explained.

Fig 1: I believe adding some satellite images might help to understand the weather condition for this case study.

L150: “The simulations are performed on Sept. 26, 2012” à “The simulations are performed for Sept. 26, 2012”? I guess this is the date of the flight, not the date when the simulation was run.

L161: “Fig. 1b” à “Fig. 2b”?

L264: “at the south of the two domain” à “at the south of the two stations”?

The manuscript titled "Influence of Secondary Ice Production on cloud and rain properties: Analysis of the HYMEX IOP7a Heavy Precipitation Event" presents a thorough numerical modelling study assessing the impact of Secondary Ice Production (SIP) on cloud microphysics and precipitation during a specific heavy rainfall event (HYMEX IOP7a). It builds on prior modelling efforts and extends them by incorporating SIP parameterisations into the DESCAM bin microphysics model. The manuscript is generally well-structured, and the methods and results are clearly presented. The authors make effective use of both airborne and ground-based observations for model validation.

The paper shows that modelled SIP processes substantially increase ice crystal number concentrations and shift the ice mass toward smaller hydrometeors. The associated reduction in total and heavy precipitation, as well as the shift in particle size distributions, are valuable outcomes for modellers and parameterisation developers.

My main concern is that I would like to see a more detailed explanation of how the SIP mechanisms were implemented in the model. Currently, these details are limited to Section 3.1 (lines 138–144). While the relevant papers are cited, some of them—particularly Phillips et al. (2018)—include multiple options and parameterisation pathways. For instance, that paper provides several approaches, including equations 43–45 (empirical estimates), equation 15 (physics-based formulation), and equations 6 and 7 (collision-based framework for ice–liquid interactions). It is not clear which of these were used in DESCAM.

Similarly, for ice–ice collisional breakup, Phillips provides different formulations depending on the interacting ice types (e.g., graupel, snow, hail) and their temperature regimes. Was this complexity implemented? If so, how was it handled in DESCAM?

In summary, I believe the paper would benefit significantly from a more transparent and detailed description of how these SIP parameterisations were implemented. This is a central part of the study, and readers will need this information to assess, reproduce, or build upon the work.

I have therefore suggested a Major Revision, although the necessary changes may turn out to be relatively minor if the authors can clearly describe the current implementation.