[wahern]

Fair point. Based on the admittedly thin circumstantial evidence in the article, I assumed relatively small craft. For example,

1) Why would a Carnival cruise ship feel the need to disclaim involvement for anything except a small, COTS drone? (IOW, presumably they at least believed they could have been such small drones.)

2) 4+ were spotted together. Wouldn't those be audible, especially if much larger than COTS drones?

3) The lights ("white light", "red flashing light") suggests COTS drones, especially because the cruise ship also noticed them. If they were special purpose military or intelligence drones, why keep the lights on?

Granted, the supposed distances involved suggest otherwise, but the article never establishes why they believed the drones were necessarily flown such distances. Rather, it seems those distances are based on the presumption that the drones were flown from one of the ships with active AIS. But that's a rather dubious assumption in the context of someone buzzing military ships w/ multiple drones.

[nonameiguess]

The Navy knows every ship that is anywhere close to it, whether or not it has its AIS turned on, even if it's underwater.

[wahern]

The Navy can know, if it wants. Cataloging every pleasure boat and fish trawler days or weeks after the fact is something else entirely.

Also, the Navy's recent history of situational awareness isn't the greatest. See, e.g., https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crash...