India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has completed three back-to-back flight tests of its Phase 2 Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system, marking a major step in the country’s effort to build a credible multi-layered missile shield.

The trials were carried out on June 10 and 11 and saw interceptors destroy targets in both the endo-atmospheric and exo-atmospheric regions.

In simpler terms, the system demonstrated its ability to engage incoming missile threats both within Earth’s atmosphere and outside it.

The Phase 2 shield is designed to counter faster and longer-range ballistic missiles than the earlier version of the program. It is also expected to eventually scale up toward intercepting intercontinental ballistic missile threats.

“The interceptors successfully engaged their respective targets. The systems are designed and developed with the latest technologies to address the emerging missile threats,” the ministry stated.

“These tests have put the country in the elite group of nations having BMD capability to engage up to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.”

Designed for longer-range threats

The Phase 2 system includes two interceptors, AD-1 and AD-2, which are meant to destroy ballistic missile threats during different phases of flight. The system is network-centric, relying on launchers, long-range radars, launch control centers, and a mission control center.

While the Ministry of Defense said the system can engage threats up to the ICBM class, the latest demonstrations reportedly involved targets in the 2,000 to 5,000-kilometer range.

Missiles in this range are generally classified as intermediate-range ballistic missiles, while ICBMs are usually defined as missiles with ranges above 5,500 kilometers.

The trials still represent a significant step up from the earlier Phase 1 system, which was developed to defend against shorter-range ballistic missile threats.

Two decades in the making

India’s BMD program began in the late 1990s, after Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests. Its first major success came in 2006, when a Prithvi-II ballistic missile target was intercepted in an endo-atmospheric test at an altitude of around 48 kilometers.

Phase 1 of the missile shield was completed in 2019 and was designed to protect key cities such as Delhi and Mumbai.

It used the Prithvi Defense Vehicle for high-altitude interception and the Advanced Air Defense interceptor for lower-altitude engagements.

Phase 3 eyes hypersonic weapons

DRDO is already working on the next stage of the program. Phase 3 is expected to focus on more complex threats, including hypersonic glide vehicles and missiles carrying Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles, or MIRVs.

Hypersonic glide vehicles are especially difficult to intercept because they travel above Mach 5 and can maneuver during flight. MIRV-equipped missiles pose another challenge because a single missile can release multiple warheads aimed at different targets.

The next-generation interceptors, reportedly designated AD-AH and AD-AM, are still at an early conceptual stage, with flight testing yet to begin.

The latest BMD trials come as China continues to field advanced missile systems and Pakistan develops longer-range and MIRV-capable weapons. For New Delhi, the tests mark another step toward a more advanced defensive shield against evolving missile threats.

US firm Aurelius Systems has completed live testing of its Archimedes autonomous directed-energy system for the Pentagon, demonstrating the laser weapon’s ability to counter unmanned aerial system threats in a live exercise.

The test was held at Camp Atterbury in Indiana and formed part of a broader evaluation effort involving nearly 60 platforms being assessed for their potential to improve warfighter protection, operational effectiveness, and next-generation defense capabilities.

During the exercise, Archimedes engaged more than 20 quadcopter drones and five U.S. Army-supplied unmanned aerial systems. According to the company, the event marked the first time the system was tested against military-provided targets.

Laser tested against army drones

The California-based defense firm said Archimedes successfully neutralized the simulated aerial threats during the demonstration.

The result, it said, validated the system’s readiness as a counter-drone tool at a time when small unmanned aircraft are becoming a growing concern for military bases, frontline units, and critical infrastructure.

The live test also showed the system’s ability to autonomously detect, identify, track, and defeat drone threats without relying on traditional missile-based interceptors.

“Archimedes proved that autonomous directed energy systems are ready to play a meaningful role in modern air defense operations,” said Michael LaFramboise, CEO of Aurelius Systems.

Built for Group 1 and 2 UAS

Archimedes is designed to counter Group 1 and Group 2 unmanned aerial systems.

These include smaller drones and UAS platforms weighing up to 1,320 pounds (599 kilograms), with speeds of up to 250 knots, or around 288 miles per hour (463 kilometers per hour).

The system combines high-energy laser output with advanced sensing technology, allowing it to repeatedly engage targets at ranges beyond 1,000 meters, or about 3,281 feet.

Unlike missile interceptors, which can be expensive and limited by magazine depth, directed-energy systems offer a different approach.

They use concentrated energy to disable or destroy threats and can potentially deliver multiple shots at a much lower cost per engagement.

That cost advantage is becoming increasingly important as relatively cheap drones are being used in large numbers across modern battlefields.

Low-cost air defense option

Aurelius Systems has positioned Archimedes as a compact, scalable counter-UAS system that can support force protection missions.

The company says the platform offers low size, weight, power, and cost characteristics, making it easier to deploy than larger air defense systems.

“The ability to autonomously acquire, identify, track, and defeat aerial threats in a compact, [low size, weight, power, and cost] platform at a significantly lower cost than traditional systems provides America with a powerful new option for protecting military forces,” La Framboise said.

The demonstration comes as the Pentagon continues to search for faster, cheaper, and more sustainable ways to defeat drones.

Small UAS threats can be difficult to detect and expensive to counter with conventional weapons, especially when launched in swarms or used repeatedly.

With its latest live test, Archimedes has now shown that it can operate against both commercial-style quadcopters and Army-supplied targets, giving Aurelius Systems a stronger case for the laser weapon’s role in future layered air defense.

Electric cars and hydrogen cars are often compared as rival technologies. However, both are electric at the wheel. The main difference is how they store and deliver energy.

Battery-electric vehicles, or BEVs, store electricity directly in a battery pack. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, or FCEVs, store energy as hydrogen and convert it into electricity inside the vehicle.

Both offer zero tailpipe emissions, but they differ sharply in efficiency, infrastructure, cost, and likely use cases.

Over the next two decades, battery EVs are expected to dominate passenger cars. Hydrogen vehicles are more likely to serve specific transport sectors such as long-haul trucks, buses, coaches, and high-use commercial fleets.

How the technologies work

A battery EV is charged by plugging into the electricity grid. The electricity is stored in a lithium-ion battery and then sent to an electric motor that drives the wheels. Because the process is direct, BEVs are highly efficient. Their electricity-to-wheel efficiency is often above 70 percent.

Hydrogen vehicles use a more complex chain. Hydrogen is produced elsewhere, compressed, stored, transported, and then refuelled into the vehicle. Inside the vehicle, a fuel cell combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity. That electricity powers the motor.

The fuel-cell stack itself is usually below 70 percent efficient. When the full green hydrogen chain is included, from electricity generation to hydrogen production, compression, transport, and conversion, the final well-to-wheel efficiency can fall closer to 20–30 percent.

This means hydrogen vehicles use much more primary energy than battery EVs when both are powered by the same renewable electricity. This efficiency gap is one of the strongest arguments in favor of battery EVs for regular passenger transport.

Efficiency, range, and cost

Battery EVs have a clear advantage in energy use and running costs. Since fewer conversion steps are involved, more of the original electricity reaches the wheels. This usually makes BEVs cheaper to operate per kilometer.

Hydrogen vehicles have an advantage in refueling time and potential range. Many FCEVs can be refueled in about 5 minutes, and some models offer 300–400 miles of range or more. 

This makes hydrogen attractive for vehicles that need long range and cannot afford long charging breaks.

For private cars, this advantage is less decisive. Most daily driving distances are short enough for modern battery EVs. Home charging, workplace charging, and public fast charging can cover most passenger vehicle use cases.

For commercial transport, the calculation changes. Trucks, buses, and fleet vehicles often run for long hours and need quick turnaround. In these cases, refueling speed, payload, and route flexibility can matter more than maximum energy efficiency.

Infrastructure challenge

Infrastructure is another major difference.

Battery EVs can use the existing electricity network. Charging infrastructure still needs major expansion, and power grids will require upgrades, but the basic system already exists. EVs can be charged at homes, offices, depots, highways, and public charging stations.

Hydrogen needs a new supply chain. It requires clean hydrogen production, compression, storage, transport, and dedicated refueling stations. This makes deployment slower and more expensive.

There is also the emissions issue. Hydrogen cars produce no tailpipe emissions, but most hydrogen today is still produced using fossil fuels, especially natural gas.

Low-emissions hydrogen accounted for less than 1 percent of global production in 2024/2025. For hydrogen vehicles to deliver major climate benefits, the fuel must increasingly come from low-emission or renewable sources.

Market outlook

The market already shows a major lead for battery EVs. Global electric car sales exceeded 20 million in 2025, reaching about 25 percent of total car sales. The IEA expects sales to grow to 23 million in 2026, representing around 28 percent of total car sales.

Hydrogen vehicles are growing from a much smaller base. One estimate values the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle market at about $0.2 billion in 2024, rising to around $2.1 billion by 2030. That shows rapid growth in percentage terms, but the market remains tiny compared with battery EVs.

Some forecasts suggest fuel-cell vehicles may account for only around 4 percent of zero-emission vehicles by 2044. However, hydrogen could have a stronger role in heavy transport, especially in long-distance trucks and high-use commercial fleets.

Final verdict

Battery EVs are likely to go further in mainstream adoption. They are more efficient, easier to scale, cheaper to run, and already supported by a fast-growing charging network.

Hydrogen is unlikely to replace battery EVs in normal passenger cars. Its future is more specialized. It can be useful in sectors where battery technology is limited, including long-haul trucking, intercity coaches, industrial fleets, shipping, and possibly aviation.

The future is not a simple electric-versus-hydrogen battle. Battery EVs are set to dominate everyday road transport, while hydrogen will compete in the harder-to-electrify parts of the transport system.