Overall, I find this paper well-written and clear and find that SCDM adds a unique element to the dry dynamical modelling hierarchy, allowing for examination of the feedbacks between interactive stratospheric ozone and circulation. 

My main comment is that given that the original Teq includes the climatological effects of ozone, it would have been nice to see how this version of the model differs. For example, it would have been interesting to compare SCDM with just climatological ozone versus SCDM with interactive ozone and compare the SSW diagnostics. This would have provided some proof-of-concept that interactive ozone can cause differences in SSW evolution, for example. 

Minor Comments:

1. Line 32: I think several other papers using the dry dynamical core have employed realistic topography (e.g. Wu and Smith, 2016)

2. Figure 3b: Is it possible that the diabatic heating differences between MERRA2 and SCDM in the tropics are related to an unrepresented QBO? This was noted in the text regarding the tropical zonal wind differences.

3. Figures 9 and 10: The authors suggest that the lack of gravity wave representation may play a role in the differences in SSWs, but these figures may also suggest that the relaxation times in SCDM are not tuned quite right. Do you think that the Newtonian and/or chemical relaxation times need to be adjusted for this configuration of the model? Did the authors test retuning the relaxation times?

This paper describes a simplified chemistry-dynamical model (SCDM), which consists of a dry dynamical core, a simple linear ozone scheme, and an ozone shortwave parameterization. In the SCDM, stratospheric chemistry couples with dynamics through ozone shortwave absorption. Ozone concentrations are determined by transport and photochemical tendencies calculated from the linear ozone scheme. Changes in ozone affect temperature and dynamics through shortwave absorption. SCDM climatology is validated against MERRA2 in terms of ozone, shortwave radiation, and dynamical fields. In addition, ozone and dynamical variability associated with the Arctic stratospheric sudden warming (SSW) events in SCDM are compared to that in MERRA2. Overall, the SCDM simulates reasonably well the climatology and variability of stratospheric ozone and dynamics.    

Interactive stratospheric ozone chemistry has been shown to play a key role in stratosphere-troposphere coupling. Given its simplicity and computational efficiency in relative to the comprehensive chemistry-climate models, the SCDM provides a potentially useful tool to understand the stratospheric chemical-dynamical coupling. The paper is well written. The description of the model is clear. I recommend publication after my comments are addressed.

Comments:

The SCDM simulates well the Arctic SSWs. Does it also capture the Antarctic temperature and wind variability? I suggest adding a figure like Figure 9 for wind and temperature.

Following up the above question, does interactive ozone improve the simulation of stratospheric dynamical variability in SCDM? In order to answer this question, an additional simulation without interactive ozone is required. If such simulation is available, I suggest adding a section to discuss this topic.

Line 310. I wonder what specific topics the authors plan to investigate (or have already investigated). And how do they plan to use the SCDM model to get a better understanding of these topics?