Commandos from 40 Commando, currently deployed in Australia as part of the Littoral Response Group (South), have been working closely with the United States Marine Corps (USMC) ahead of Exercise Predators Run.

This collaboration includes trialling the new Polaris MRZR-D4 ultralight 4×4 off-road vehicles with the MV-22 Osprey aircraft.

The Polaris MRZR-D4 vehicles, designed for speed and agility, are an essential component of the Royal Marines’ modernisation efforts. Capable of carrying up to four commandos and reaching speeds of 60 mph, these vehicles are ideally suited for the quick raiding missions that are central to the Royal Marines’ evolving tactics.

The MRZRs are being tested for their potential to enhance rapid movement across the battlefield, allowing small teams to quickly engage and disengage from enemy positions.

The MRZR-D4 can transport supplies, ammunition, water, and fuel, and can be equipped with machine guns and grenade launchers for increased firepower. Despite its lack of heavy armour, the MRZR-D4’s turbocharged diesel engine allows it to perform quick attacks, logistical resupply, and casualty evacuation.

The vehicle’s compact size also means it can be transported by Chinook helicopters, facilitating rapid deployment.

Exercise Predators Run, a multilateral combined arms exercise, will take place in the Northern Territory of Australia. In addition to forces from the UK, the exercise will involve personnel and capabilities from the Australian Army, USMC, Malaysian Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Held at the Mount Bundey Training Area, this exercise aims to strengthen cooperation and interoperability among the participating nations’ military forces.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

31 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_833016)
12 days ago

Better and more effective than the Russian’s golf carts one presumes.

Steve
Steve (@guest_833077)
11 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Not sure it would classify as either to be fair. It would be an equal death trap in a modern drone war.

The Russian (well chinese) are working fine but lack of armour means they are getting easily wiped out.

Special forces and similar operations when the enemy isn’t expecting you they will probably be great.

Last edited 11 days ago by Steve
Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_833082)
11 days ago
Reply to  Steve

using weapons of maneuver and exploitation during in an attritional fight will do that: it doesn’t mean the concept is outdated, perhaps more niche than it used to be though.

S5107
S5107 (@guest_833121)
11 days ago
Reply to  Steve

That’s exactly what these are for, raids. An RM commando strike team isn’t an armoured brigade nor does it have the same role !

Steve
Steve (@guest_833137)
11 days ago
Reply to  S5107

The problem with raids is the enemy can now quickly counter with drones cutting off the escape route. They would be highly dangerous to use. Look at the video of the Russian raid with them with all of them destroyed by fpv drones.

S5107
S5107 (@guest_833190)
11 days ago
Reply to  Steve

There’s tonnes of examples of successful raids by Ukrainians. Also, the RM have been training with anti drone tech, for this reason.

Steve
Steve (@guest_833196)
11 days ago
Reply to  S5107

There are a lot more examples of one’s that have failed also. This is a war of attrition and whilst Russia is taking way higher losses, Ukraine is also taking massive losses.

S5107
S5107 (@guest_833215)
11 days ago
Reply to  Steve

There’s a lot of examples of attrition from the entire conflict, not just raids. The whole thing is terrible. Drones are having Thier day the moment but soon they won’t. Anti Drone tech is coming on fast and is being factored into things like raiding.

Steve
Steve (@guest_833219)
11 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Anti drone tech is advancing but still nothing that actually works effectively, outside good old fashioned machine gun. The issue is as jamming tech improves so does the defences against it and so its a constant battle and drone tech appears to be advancing way faster than the defences as they appear to be way cheaper.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_833723)
9 days ago
Reply to  Steve

The Russians aren’t deploying them from helicopters over long distances.
Those cheap fpv drones can’t operate over the horizon without repeaters and that takes preparation and of course the rest of the kill chain.
Not every conflict will be static and attritional.

Steve
Steve (@guest_833726)
9 days ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

I’m pretty sure any conflict against a peer opponent would rapidly become it. The reason conflicts become more mobile was the tank and this war has basically demonstrated that their day is over at least for now until a solution can be found.

Steve
Steve (@guest_833729)
9 days ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

Its also almost impossible to build up a tank force for either side as drones are always watching and so they are seen building up long before they are ready to deploy, logistics chains needed for them are just too long.

Last edited 9 days ago by Steve
Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_833892)
9 days ago
Reply to  Steve

There is a version that carries an anti drone ECM.

Steve
Steve (@guest_833901)
8 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Has any of the anti drone tech been proven to actually work? That’s the issue, until they can be combat tested no one including the MOD can plan around them.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_833024)
12 days ago

Why, yet again, have we bought American equipment? Doesn’t Supacat offer a lightweight 4×4 that would be air transportable? US missiles for Apache instead of Brimstone.
The new govt has already mentioned a defence industrial strategy. Never saw much evidence of the one announced by the previous govt, with an ever increasing proportion of the defence equipment budget spent abroad.

Charles Verrier
Charles Verrier (@guest_833035)
12 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

I don’t think Supacat does anything this light. As far as I’ve read, the cost of integration made Brimstone too expensive – plus presumably extending the actual deployment timescale to an unknown future date – and we all know how fabulously things work out when UK-only modifications are done during procurement projects. I swear – every single time the UK interferes with an off-the-shelf product to wedge British industry into the mix, it harms us.. Never mind recent examples like Ajax and Chinook HC3, you can go back as far as the 60’s with the UK fitting Rolls Royce engines… Read more »

HamishUK
HamishUK (@guest_833038)
12 days ago

100% agreed – As a former serving member of HM Forces I never liked this whole ‘Buy British’ mentality and neither did the soldiers in my unit. Buy British sometimes we would end up with stuff being overly expensive and no better than another militaries equipment. SA80 comes to mind as another one….Ajax is another although a Spanish design Smart procurement was the way forward and buy the best equipment that is tried and tested and available in large volumes! Also because of high volume of sales typically the kit will have a longer shelf life and be subject to… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_833041)
12 days ago

That is EXACTLY, in my opinion, how I think HMG and MPs see the defence budget.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_833056)
11 days ago

And so they should. We run a chronic trade deficit. Sourcing as much equipment domestically helps to mitigate that. In my view, we should go further in that direction, in the hope that we can regain defence export markets we have lost over the last few decades.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_833054)
11 days ago

European countries that support and in many cases own their major defence suppliers, eg France or Italy, tend to have larger forces at lower cost. Clearly, in some instances, especially after years of allowing land equipment design and manufacture to wither away, we may incur heavier costs to include domestic participation in rebuilding that capacity. Ajax is an example. MBDA is not largely French. It is owned 37.5% by BAE, 37.5% by Airbus and 25% by Leonardo/Finmeccanica.About a third of employees are UK based. A key way of maintaining popular support for defence expenditure is to maximize domestic production. In… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_833130)
11 days ago

Powers that ignore their military manufacturer and development infrastructure loss the important wars they have to fight. Simply put geopolitics shift as do allies and enemies….so being dependent on other nations for your military power is not a good idea if you can avoid it…let’s just remember we have been at war with every major ally we presently have and are now enemies with powers that were once allies… within living memory we were in an existential war of destruction with two nations that are now are closest allies…before WW Germany had been an ally and France the greatest strategic… Read more »

Last edited 11 days ago by Jonathan
Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_833167)
11 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Fair point.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_833169)
11 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I agree totally. If we are prepared to buy off the shelf, why bother with Tempest? Why not have our warships built cheaply abroad with fitting out only left in the UK, just like Denmark do? Obsession with market forces has exposed UK defence industry to unfair competition with US companies that not only have a huge market but a protected one; and European companies, wholly or partly owned by the state and supported during lean times. The results are obvious- * T31 a Danish design, constructed from imported steel, with German built engines, Dutch CMS and guns built in… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_833177)
11 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Indeed, every nation that can develops its own military industrial complex and builds its own equipment..even if it’s inferior or more expensive. Because in the end armies fight wars but it’s nations that win or loss the wars that really matter.. The brutal truth is that sometimes the UK has sent our armed forces off to fight with inferior equipment and sometimes superior equipment…in the end that’s not what really either won or lost campaigns. Sometimes you do need to buy in a foreign bit of kit…but if your own nation can provide it that’s the way you go..and if… Read more »

Colin
Colin (@guest_833048)
12 days ago

Yes Charles V you are very correct every single time the UK interferes with an off-the-shelf product to wedge British industry into the mix, it harms us.. Still can remember the AEW Nimrod 200 – 300 Million that would be the total cost We ploughed millions and Millions into this Airframe at cancellation over a a billion pounds was spent UK then decided to try and converting them to missile carrying Airframes even that didn’t get off the ground UK seem to try and change everything and Ajax is another complete mess still have none on the front line

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_833097)
11 days ago
Reply to  Colin

“Ajax is another complete mess still have none on the front line”

I don’t think that is correct. The first troops of the HCR have been using the vehicle for some time.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_833123)
11 days ago
Reply to  Colin

Well Ajax is a firm cost contract…that is now being delivered..so I would not call it a complete mess..if it had never been delivered it would have been a complete mess…but it’s being delivered.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_833129)
11 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Fixed price contrats also should have a fixed time delivery.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_833133)
11 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

It’s a firm priced contract Alex, thank goodness or else the costs would have gone up. Around time it all depends on what’s in the contract…I suspect because it was firm price they could not put any significant penalty in for time..the very fact it’s a firm price will kill the contractor if they go over time…I suspect GD UK suffered losses on this contract. If it’s a fixed price contract you would have more time related penalties in there.

Last edited 11 days ago by Jonathan
Watch on the Rhine
Watch on the Rhine (@guest_833633)
10 days ago

What a useless photo! At first I thought it was a dirty clothes basket caught up the the rear of an aircraft. Cant RM photographers take goof phots these days ?

Mark T.
Mark T. (@guest_834564)
7 days ago

What we need are smaller submarines. It’s better to have 20 small subs with half a dozen cruise missiles than 2 subs with 20.