Well these fly and were airborne. If they weren’t aerial or airborne they’d probably call them UGP’s or Unidentified Ground Phenomena. But that’s not the case. ☺
In other words, it’s all bull s**t, they’re playing with the term to get away from the old school stigma of the term, “UFO”. The government is really good at changing names and terms to fit and or to avoid stigmas, or to be politically correct, etc.
Some of these things are different types of balloons. Clearly, they are floating, but not flying.
I know it sounds like a bullshit distinction. Today a vast majority of things reported are clearly something that can ultimately be identified. For example every time Musk releases Starlink satellites, the “phones light up.”
I think anyone who isn’t familiar with the reporting process or reviewing a lot of these things should refrain from making judgements. On either side.
Either the craft defy gravity or produce a non-gravity area in the atmosphere around them. No one could survive the G’s they are pulling and movements. UFO/UAP, objects sure, but if there is atmospheric phenomena we do not understand occurring around them, then the UAP term is applicable.
And I agree the government has played games with this for decades and I fully expect it to continue, but the 180 change by the military at least suggests something significant has changed in the equation.