The manuscript presents a valuable dataset of radar vertical profiles probed at the Antarctic research station of Dumont D'Urville. The radar used is a Micro Rain Radar, a vertically pointing radar operating at 24 GHz that offers robustness and reliability in such a complex environment as Antarctica.

MRR at DDU holds one of the most extended data series of observations, being one the first deployments of MRR in the Antarctic Continent, followed by other installations, Mario Zucchelli, Concordia, Davis, and others in the Antarctic peninsula, shaping a rising network of MRR, a valuable asset to be preserved and strengthened.

The Antarctic Continent suffers indeed from a significant lack of ground observations due to its inaccessibility and difficulty in installing and maintaining instruments. This is the reason why ground observations from Antarctica are worth double. In this respect, an MRR network is fundamental to a deep understanding of precipitation over the continent, especially at the lower atmospheric layers where numerical models and satellite observations almost fail.

The authors present 7 years of observations of vertical profiles at DDU. The profiles have been investigated in terms of radar reflectivity, Doppler velocity, and SNR to point out seasonal and interannual variability. In addition, the long-term observations of a co-located raingauge have allowed them to calculate a well-established relationship between Ze and snowfall rate for the site, which has also been compared against other relationships achieved in other Antarctic research stations.

A comparison between MRR precipitation profiles and numerical model outputs is also presented as a possible and natural application of such a complete dataset. The comparison highlights the underestimation of precipitation computed by the models during heavy precipitation events.

The work is rather well structured, and the results are clearly presented.

This manuscript contributes to growing the general knowledge of Antarctic precipitation and highlighting the importance of long-term observations performed in the Antarctic stations for exploring and investigating the microphysics processes of precipitation along the vertical.

The paper is very interesting, and, in my opinion, it deserves to be published on ESSD as it fits with the scientific address of the journal and is within the journal's scope.

However, some minor aspects could be reviewed and clarified before publication:

Radome attenuation: The MRR at DDU is placed in a radome. Radome attenuation was estimated at 6 dBZ, which was added to MRR observations to correct them. This is a key point. Have you taken into account the attenuation of a snow layer that can form over the radome during heavy precipitation? Or does the strong wind help to keep the radome clear? Another point:  is the radome heated? If yes, the possible snow melting over the dome during precipitation strongly increases the attenuation of the radar signal. Have you made some tests in this respect?

Sublimation: In lines 30 and on, you dealt with the sublimation processes during precipitation, a well-known feature of the snowfall over the Antarctic coast. You have cited Grazioli (2017), in which an average snowfall reduction of 17% was estimated at DDU. More recent works (Alexandre,2023 10.1029/2022JD038389 and Bracci,2022 https://doi.org/10.23919/AT-AP-RASC54737.2022.9814266) have found higher values of snowfall reduction (up to 50%) at Davis station and Mario Zucchelli station, respectively. Have you used your extended dataset to calculate a more robust estimation of snowfall reduction at DDU compared to Grazioli? It would be interesting to do this as the decrease in snowfall rate due to sublimation has a fundamental impact on comparing snowfall estimation achieved from ground-based instruments, satellites, and numerical models.

Rainfall episode: In lines 194 and on, some hints of the presence of rain in altitude are reported. It is a very interesting event. Have you sought confirmation (satellite, numerical models…)?

Spectrum width: lines 226 and on, even the spectrum width (recorded by MRR) could be used to highlight the presence of turbulence in the lower levels (That's more of a suggestion).

Hourly timesteps: For Ze-SR calculation, if I have understood correctly, you have at first 9456 hourly precipitating timesteps that, after applying filters for wind speed and weighing gauge issues, decrease to 503. It is a very consistent reduction of data. So you  extract the “mean” Ze-SR relationship for DDU site, but, at the same time, the signal representing the intrinsic variability of snow is lost. I would suggest you also calculate Ze-SR relationships by not applying filters or using a smoother filter for windspeed to get a sense of the variability of Ze-SR relationships in such an extended dataset for an Antarctic site.

References: In the Introduction, I would suggest reviewing this section by adding some references because some statements need them (e.g., line 15 or 65). In the list of MRR installations over Antarctica, I would include the MRR at Concordia (Di Natale, 2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-7235-2022) and at Davis station (Alexandre,2023 10.1029/2022JD038389 ) station as they are new deployments over the Antarctic continent, making the Antarctic MRR network grow.

Coordinates: Harmonize lon/lat coordinates along the text. In some cases, the lon/lat is made explicit in other no. Maybe it could be explained only at first.

General Comments:

The manuscript is a review of seven years of observations of precipitation estimates made by a Micro Rain Radar (MRR) at Dumont d’Urvillle, Antarctica. The manuscript is well written, clear in what it is presenting, and provides a large amount of information that is significant for the community. Most all of my specific comments are more of a more minor nature and can be considered by the authors for inclusions to make the manuscript stronger. I do not have any major concerns that have to be addressed in the revision.

Specific comments:

• The study is well cited with previous literature. It would be nice to see more references outside of the Antarctic region and what appears to be a tight community with circular references. Although, I also recognize that the applicability of most other studies using K-band precipitation observations to be of limited use in the Antarctic.
• The opening line of the abstract is a little strong, especially the second clause in regards to mitigating sea-level rise, than what is necessary for a manuscript regarding observations of precipitation by a MRR at Dumont d’Urville. While I agree that precipitation measurements are significant to Antarctic ice sheet mass balance I would view it as more a point of background/motivation than a summary point in the abstract of this manuscript.
• The figures for Sec. 3.1 provide a good overview and representation of the MRR dataset. I think they are limited in their usefulness for any specific science content but that is fine given that they provide a great summary of the collected data.
• I found the inclusion of calculations to identify significant trends in the MRR observations over a period of seven years to be unnecessary. I guess that is a general component in the current world of trying to identify climate impact trends whenever possible, even in relatively short duration datasets.
• I found it interesting that about one-fourth of the text in the manuscript was devoted to Sec. 3.2 and the Ze-S relationship. Yet the determination of prefactor and exponent parameters is one of the most significant aspects of the quality and usefulness of the data. The one lingering question that I had is just how much does the variation in the parameters impact the results. For example, if Graizoli et al. (2017a) is used instead of the values from this manuscript, by how much does that change the results in Fig. 8.

Technical corrections:

L38:     Include “power” as in “low power consumption” to clarify what is being referenced with consumption.

L86:     Include a reference for the YOPP-SH activities.

L142-144:  The opening sentence in this paragraph is difficult to follow. At a minimum, it should be split into two sentences. I am not entirely certain what is trying to be said in the opening sentence.

L153:   Do not need to spell out YOPP given that it was previously defined on L86.

L153:   Define CMIP6 and include a reference either for the general CMIP6 studies or for any specific MIP that would be of relevance for Antarctic precipitation.

L180:   Either include a reference to the statement of the frequency increasing in the next decades or remove the last clause of this sentence.