That article is so poorly researched imho: 1. They pretend the term "UFO" is on equal footing as "flying saucer", and that in the past the military was incredu

That article is so poorly researched imho: 1. They pretend the term "UFO" is on equal footing as "flying saucer", and that in the past the military was incredulous on this subject. Of course it was and should be skeptical about "flying saucers", but I don't believe it ever was incredulous on UFO reports, indeed I'd guess the abreviation Unidentified Flying Object was originally a military term to designate flying craft, not identified by the observer... 2. They mention that this was one of the first large-scale deployments of sensor fusion: if one sensor detects an object, then it is digitally gossiped to all other stations: boats, planes, ... so this is the simplest explanation for "independent" sightings by the Nimitz Carrier for example, also if this is one of the first deployments with sensor fusion then many members of different crews could easily mis-interpret the appearance of objects on their local screen as deriving from a local sensor..., only one sensor system needs to imagine an object, and all crews believe they independently witnessed the same object... For the article to explicitly mention this from source material without connecting the dots is just poor reporting. 3. They describe top down behaviour resembling a cover-up, if genuine this is not very surprising either: nation states try to keep secret not only the performance of their system in optimal conditions (knowing and bypassing this limit undetected would be valuable to an enemy), but they also try to keep secret failure modes (since the enemy can exploit failure modes, think chaff etc...). Another explanation is that the manufacturers are well connected with top brass, and they try to keep their reputation by covering up shoddy performance off their systems...