>

Yes.
The title and article are simply rubbish.... >

Can we stop using "Spyplane", "Warplane", and "Warship"? It gives barely any information about the vehicle in question and just sounds like it's coming from the vacabulary of a 6th grader.
Airborne early warning and control system is easy to understand, gives significantly more information, and doesn't sound as amateurish. Or at least use reconnaissance aircraft if you are desperate to not give too much information in the title.
Same with fighter aircraft, frigate, destroyer, etc. 
Those names exist for a reason. >

Headlines are for dumb people to understand and are meant to be short, for those that are interested they can read the article.
I dont really see the issue here. >

The issue is it causes dumb people to think they understand while they avoid reading the article. Let's not cater to idiots. >

When I was in the Navy we called ships Warships and reconnaissance aircraft spy planes. We called all kinds of things by their simpler easier to say terms unless we had a critical need to be specific.
We didn’t say “there is a Nimitz class nuclear steam propelled aircraft carrier maneuvering at one hundred and eighty degrees head and moving forward at 22 knots or approximately 23 miles per hour bearing two hundred and twenty degrees off of our port stern section”
We said “conn we have a warship bearing two two zero heading one eight zero at 22 knots”
Headlines and articles should also communicate in a direct manner (especially the headline) and add context where it is needed (typically in the article). >

Oh hey, we made the news! >

Are you NATO, German, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian or a spy plane?