TJ150 missile engine completes tests with nearly 60% 3D-printed hardware ⁠76%

By Aamir Khollam⁠43%

7/21/2026, 12:02:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 185 hits. Analysis detected 1,198 faulty-reasoning hits from 505 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (5,240 of 21,112 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.20% of the article peer group.

Pratt & Whitney has completed demonstration testing of an additively manufactured version of its TJ150 turbojet engine, validating a production approach that could help the company build expendable propulsion systems faster as demand for cruise missiles and autonomous weapons continues to rise. 
The RTX business announced the milestone ahead of the Farnborough International Airshow, saying nearly 60% of the engine by volume now consists of 3D-printed parts. 
Engineers used the demonstration to evaluate how the printed hardware performed under operating conditions and whether it could withstand the thermal and mechanical loads expected during a mission. 
Faster engine production 
Unlike reusable aircraft engines that must remain in service for years, the TJ150 powers expendable systems that typically operate for only minutes or hours. 
That design philosophy allows manufacturers to prioritize rapid production, simpler assembly and lower manufacturing costs without compromising mission performance. 
Pratt & Whitney believes additive manufacturing can help achieve those goals by reducing the number of parts, shortening production timelines and making it easier to scale output. 
“For expendable engines like the TJ150, where missions can last minutes or hours, simplifying the design and scaling production quickly is essential to meeting rising demand,” said Jill Albertelli, president of Military Engines at Pratt & Whitney. 
She said additive manufacturing allows the company to move new engine designs from concept to operational capability more quickly. 
Pratt & Whitney is also applying lessons from the TJ150 program to future propulsion projects, including its Valox engine family. 
Engineers have steadily expanded the use of additive manufacturing throughout the program. 
More than 50 individual hot-section components have been consolidated into only a handful of printed parts, reducing assembly complexity and the number of potential failure points. 
The team also successfully tested a 3D-printed rotating turbine wheel before integrating it into the latest engine configuration. 
Supporting missile programs 
The TJ150 is a compact turbojet that produces more than 150 pounds of thrust while operating efficiently at high altitudes. 
Its small size allows it to power cruise missiles and other autonomous platforms where weight, packaging and fuel efficiency directly affect range and payload capacity. 
The engine already supports several missile applications, with Pratt & Whitney delivering more than 2,700 units to customers worldwide. 
Its modular design also enables production to scale as defense programs transition from development into higher-rate manufacturing. 
That capability became more important in March, when Pratt & Whitney received a follow-on contract from Leidos Dynetics to supply TJ150 engines for the AGM-190A small cruise missile . 
The award reinforced the engine’s role in the program while reflecting growing demand for compact propulsion systems across the defense sector. 
The company said additive manufacturing forms a key part of its long-term production strategy for the TJ150. 
Beyond reducing component counts, the approach broadens supply chain options, speeds manufacturing, and provides greater flexibility when increasing output. 
Successful demonstration testing shows the printed engine can meet operational requirements while supporting a faster and more scalable manufacturing model for future missile propulsion systems. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.8%Aamir Khollam: 2.9%Interesting Engineering: 3.9%Confirmation Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 1.5%Interesting Engineering: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Aamir Khollam: 1.7%Interesting Engineering: 2.5%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 9.7%Aamir Khollam: 1.3%Interesting Engineering: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.7%This article: 4.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.4%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Hindsight Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 2.6%Interesting Engineering: 5.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Aamir Khollam: 7.2%Interesting Engineering: 6.5%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.4%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.9%Interesting Engineering: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.5%Interesting Engineering: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 36.4%Aamir Khollam: 22.9%Interesting Engineering: 17.5%Optimism Bias36.4%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.1%Interesting Engineering: 0.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.4%Interesting Engineering: 1.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Aamir Khollam: 4.9%Interesting Engineering: 4.6%Self-Serving Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.1%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.3%Interesting Engineering: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Aamir Khollam: 4.2%Interesting Engineering: 5.0%Halo Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Aamir Khollam: 1.0%Interesting Engineering: 1.1%Recency Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.3%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Aamir Khollam: 7.8%Interesting Engineering: 9.0%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 4.8%Aamir Khollam: 1.2%Interesting Engineering: 1.5%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.4%Interesting Engineering: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Aamir Khollam: 4.4%Interesting Engineering: 5.2%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.1%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.4%Interesting Engineering: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.3%Aamir Khollam: 1.8%Interesting Engineering: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 3.8%Aamir Khollam: 0.6%Interesting Engineering: 1.3%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 36.6%Aamir Khollam: 2.1%Interesting Engineering: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)36.6%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.5%Interesting Engineering: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.9%Aamir Khollam: 0.5%Interesting Engineering: 0.3%Composition/Division8.9%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.7%Interesting Engineering: 0.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Aamir Khollam: 1.6%Interesting Engineering: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.1%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Aamir Khollam: 1.1%Interesting Engineering: 1.8%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.8%Interesting Engineering: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.3%Aamir Khollam: 3.2%Interesting Engineering: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice11.3%This article: 5.3%Aamir Khollam: 0.1%Interesting Engineering: 0.7%Indoctrination5.3%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aamir Khollam: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Aamir Khollam: 8.9%Interesting Engineering: 10.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.6%

505 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech377writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageRTX business • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coveragePratt & Whitney • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJill Albertelli • 37 words • 100.0% coverageJill Albertelli • 19 words • 0.0% coveragePratt & Whitney • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jill Albertelli

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words44% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+66.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jill Albertelli: 66.1%66.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%Jill Albertelli: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.1 ptsWriter: 15.1%Jill Albertelli: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.