Cummings Aerospace ready to manufacture Hellhound munition
Cummings Aerospace is now ready to manufacture its Hellhound loitering munition at what equates to low-rate production, CEO Sheila Cummings told Defense News in a recent interview at its new production facility near Huntsville, Alabama.
The company chose a space next door to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, home to the program office and testing and development for Army aviation, in 2021 and designed and built a facility intended to produce large numbers of the drones.
'The work we have done to date, not only with the development of the vehicle, but preparing for major acquisition and production of these vehicles, has been a huge focus for us,' Cummings said. 'We're really excited that we are now at manufacturing readiness level 7.'
The classification equates to a defined production workflow at the facility and the establishment of work instructions for building the air vehicles.
Hellhound, weighing less than 25 pounds, flew faster than 350 miles per hour at full throttle while passing distances of 20 kilometers using just 50% of its fuel, according to the company.
The air vehicle is the first major end-to-end weapon system developed by Cummings Aerospace, a Native American woman-owned small business founded in 2009 as an aerospace engineering outfit with expertise in design, development, production and sustainment of capabilities, including missiles, radars and command-and-control system technologies.
Hellhound will be demonstrated in several upcoming events with special operations, the U.S. Navy and even abroad in the U.K. this summer, according to Cummings.
'We're using these demo opportunities, in addition to our flight tests, to ultimately execute low-rate production,' Cummings said. 'We're talking about quantities of 12 to 14 vehicles for these demos,' she added, 'but it's really allowing us to fully vet our production process.'
The military is changing the way it acquires weapon systems and, in many cases, requires companies to prove they can build systems at scale as part of competitive acquisitions. Historically, a weapon system might be chosen for its performance on the battlefield without much attention paid to the amount of work it would take to build a system or even how stable the supplier base was.
Cummings Aerospace wrapped up flight tests of its turbo-jet-powered, 3D-printed kamikaze drone earlier this year and is readying the S3 version of its man-portable Hellhound for submission to the U.S. Army's Low Altitude Stalking and Striking Ordnance, or LASSO, competition set to kick off later this year.
The competition would require the company to build 135 munitions total and would expect companies chosen to build 35 prototypes right out of the gate.
In Cumming's opinion, the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Indo-Pacific have underscored the need to ensure production capacity and understand the supply chain and its risks.
'That's what's driven the whole modular design and making sure that we have an open systems architecture and be able to swap in technologies very readily,' Cummings said.
A large portion of the air vehicle is made using commercially available 3D printers in-house and buying commercially available standard parts that are not unique to just a few suppliers, Cummings said.
'If you think about low-cost solutions — that's part of the strategy — is we have to design something that we can get screws from multiple vendors, we can get 3D print material from multiple vendors,' she said. 'We talk about exquisite payloads, that's a different challenge, but electronics, we have to make sure we can source them from multiple vendors.'
And to surge even further, Cummings said there are other solutions that are easy to implement like licensing the design to other suppliers to go and produce using standard 3D printers to help expand production capacity.
For the Huntsville facility, Cummings said her goal is to produce at least 100 air vehicles a month.
'Payloads obviously drive some of that,' she noted, but added that there is room to grow beyond that, whether it's next door or using the supplier base to ramp up demand.
The expectation now is 'not just a new, novel technology or capability, but prove that you can make it,' Cummings said. 'So we're proving we can make them and make them at scale.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises
Gov. Kelly Armstrong speaks during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) Legal staff for North Dakota's legislative branch concluded the 'prudent remedy' to correct an error with Gov. Kelly Armstrong's line-item veto would be for the governor to call a special session, according to a memo issued Friday. But Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who is working on a separate opinion, maintains that Legislative Council has no role in determining the execution of the governor's veto. Armstrong announced May 22 a 'markup error' with a line-item veto that crossed out $35 million for a state housing development fund. The red X over the funding did not match what Armstrong indicated in his veto message that explained his reasoning. North Dakota governor unintentionally vetoes $35 million for housing programs A Legislative Council memo distributed to lawmakers Friday concluded that legal precedent supports the marked-up bill as the official veto document. 'Engaging in interpretive gymnastics' to disregard the markings on the bill could lead to unintended consequences in the future, Legislative Council concluded. Emily Thompson, legal division director for Legislative Council, said the Legislature needs to have an objective document to clearly illustrate what was vetoed, such as the specific veto markings on the bill, so lawmakers can exercise their veto override authority effectively. Lawmakers have six days remaining in their 80-day limit and could call themselves back into session to address the veto. However, the memo cautions that the Legislature may need those days to reconvene to respond to federal funding issues or other unforeseen reasons. Legislative Council recommends the governor call a special session, which would not count against the 80-day limit. A special session of the Legislature costs about $65,000 per day, according to Legislative Council. Armstrong is waiting for an attorney general's opinion to determine the next steps, according to a statement from his office. He previously said he would call a special session if necessary. Wrigley said Friday it's up to his office to assess the situation and issue an opinion on the governor's question. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' Wrigley said. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong on May 19 issued two line-item vetoes in Senate Bill 2014, the budget for the state Industrial Commission. His veto message explained his reasons for objecting to a $150,000 one-time grant for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But the marking also crossed out $25 million for housing projects and programs and $10 million to combat homelessness, which he later said he did not intend to veto. Chris Joseph, general counsel for Armstrong, wrote in a request for an attorney general's opinion that the markings served as a 'color-coded visual aid,' and the veto message should control the extent of the veto. Wrigley said his office is working on the opinion and aware that resolution of the issue is time sensitive. Bills passed by the Legislature with appropriations attached to them, such as the Industrial Commission budget, go into effect July 1. 'I look forward to publishing my opinion on that at the earliest possible time,' he said. The Legislative Council memo states, 'It would not be appropriate to allow the governor and attorney general to resolve the ambiguity by agreement.' In addition, Legislative Council concluded that if the governor's veto message is to be considered the controlling document for vetoes in the future, more ambiguities would likely be 'inevitable and frequent' and require resolution through the courts. The memo cites a 2018 North Dakota Supreme Court opinion involving a case between the Legislature and then-Gov. Doug Burgum that ruled 'a veto is complete and irrevocable upon return of the vetoed bill to the originating house,' and further stated the governor does not have the power to 'withdraw a veto.' 'Setting a precedent of the attorney general issuing a letter saying we can just go ahead and interpret the governor's veto message to mean what was, or was not, vetoed, that's a really concerning precedent to set,' Thompson said in an interview. Wrigley said any issues resulting from the opinion could be addressed by the courts. 'I sincerely hope that they (Legislative Council) are not trying to somehow publicly advocate, or attempt to influence a process for which they have no role,' Wrigley said. Legislative Council memo SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Right to Repair? Army secretary pushes for access to tools, parts
(NewsNation) — The Right to Repair is gaining a ton of momentum across the country. Earlier this month, Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll committed to including right-to-repair provisions in all existing and future contracts with manufacturers. Right to Repair is a legal right for owners of devices and equipment to freely modify and repair products such as automobiles, electronics, and farm equipment. Presently, the Army has committed to securing right-to-repair provisions in contracts. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is advocating for other military branches to adopt the requirement, addressing the long-standing repairability problems across the armed forces. Spyware suspected on iPhones of US, EU political figures: Report 'The Army's commitment to Right to Repair shows other industries that they can do the same,' she says. Last month in Washington, the Right to Repair became law after advocates had spent years trying to get it passed. In addition, a wheelchair bill in New York has also advanced, while a new bill has been introduced in Pennsylvania that covers consumer and business electronics. In 2025, 35 states — up from 30 last year — have considered Right to Repair legislation. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Government moves to drop Sheetz race case after Trump halts use of key civil rights tool
Federal authorities moved Friday to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the top federal agency for enforcing workers rights, filed a motion in a Pennsylvania federal court to dismiss the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: A Black worker who was let go from his Sheetz job in Pennsylvania filed a motion in federal court Thursday evening to intervene and pursue his own class action lawsuit. In its motion Friday, the EEOC asked the court to delay its dismissal of the lawsuit for 60 days to allow potential claimants to intervene. The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects long-standing conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases,' which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. But following Trump's disparate impact order, the EEOC filed a motion District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the lawsuit. The EEOC had sent letters to potential claimants notifying them of its intention to drop the case and urging them to act quickly if they wished to intervene. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. The EEOC declined to comment further on the case. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene late Thursday. Miller, 32, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020, according to the motion filed by the law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified but Outten & Golden estimates the number to likely be in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a preemployment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. A Supreme Court ruling Thursday could help open the door for more complaints against DEI policies that Lucas has said will be her priority. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
