>

Spy plane?
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? >

Yes. >

Will be interested in how this unfolds. >

NATO save some jet fuel. >

Yes they do, and loud is an understatement. F-108’s over TF-33’s all day. >

F108 = CFM56
And what's amazing about the CFM56: "The CFM56 first ran in 1974. By April 1979, the joint venture had not received a single order in five years and was two weeks away from being dissolved. The program was saved when Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and Flying Tigers chose the CFM56 to re-engine their DC-8s and shortly thereafter it was chosen to re-engine the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker fleet of the U.S. Air Force"
Such an amazing engine and it eventually powered the A320 and gave new life to the 737 fleet with the -300/-400/-500.  And how could airlines not be interested in fuel efficiency after the OPEC crisis?  Those airlines must have been run by dinosaurs at the time.