Please see the attached PDF for my detailed overall comments and line-specific comments.

Note that for some reason, the preview of my revies is indicating I'm not willing to review the revised manuscript.  This is incorrect, I *am* willing to review the revised manuscript.

This is a review of Kou et al., "Simulation and sensitivity analysis for cloud

and precipitation measurements via spaceborne millimeter wave radar".  The

authors evaluate the sensitivity of a forward model for radar reflectivity to

its microphysical input variables.  The forward model includes cloud ice and

water, melting mixed-phase precipitation, snow, graupel and rain.  They then

perform comparisons of reflectivities that are forward modeled for two WRF

simulations (one stratiform and one convective event) against CloudSat

observations of the same events.  They find in particular that including radar

attenuation in the forward model gives improved results over a forward model

without attenuation.

Overall, this seems to be a concise and well-executed study.  The conclusion

that including attenuation in the forward model is necessary for reproducing

W-band reflectivities in precipitation that includes melting and liquid phases is

not surprising.  Perhaps more surprising is that such good agreement was

achieved in the comparisons of reflectivities between the WRF simulations and

the CloudSat observations.  It appears that the model fields were selected

from the exact groundtrack and the exact time of the CloudSat overpass.  It's

unusual, I think, for model features, particularly precipitation, to be so

well-located with the observations.

I think the study is a useful contribution to the precipitation retrieval

literature.  My overall comments relate to how the sensitivity perturbations

were defined and how the WRF simulations were configured.  Most significant is

whether the assessment of uncertainties due to particle shape and orientation

is sufficient.  I'd like to see this addressed in revision.  My specific

comments are more extensive and touch mainly on unclear language and missing

details.  Because they are extensive, I am calling the necessary revisions

"major".

I think that with revision, the paper can be acceptable for publication.  For

this current revision, the scientific significance is good, the scientific

quality is fair but this is difficult to judge due to the presentation.  The

presentation quality is fair.