> The other is a disturbing, frightening possibility. If we have widespread problems with these kinds of sensors[...]

But basically all of these reports are based on "edge of observability" cases. Which is also why the official report cites a lack of high quality data. These problems are inherent with any kind of sensor system and observations made using said system. Not to mention that as far as I am aware most cases aren't even down to sensor data but simply observers. "Overhauling" of these systems will at best shift the edge of observation, but not address the underlaying problem.

Case in point being the outlandish claims by pilots about "physics breaking" manouvers which are not supported by the actual videos being presented as evidence and observers being unable to correctly identify position lights on aircraft, let alone basic optics.

EDIT:

It seems like CrelbowMannschaft put me on their ignore list in order to prevent me from actually replying to this. I wonder why.

The official reports outright decry the lack of high quality data and that the nature of the employed sensor makes them ill-suited for the task they are put to here. They also list sensor malfunctions, observer misperception, airborne clutter as possible explanations. Given that the Pentagon had to admit that the only actual evidence that has been presented - the videos - show exactely that, and that the plethora of other "UFO" reports made by basically everyone aroudn the globe happen to be down to "edge of observability" issues (distance, speed, focus, etc.) and so far all reports ever made tunred out to be exllainable by mundane means when high quality data was available leads me to believe that this is, in fact, inherent to sensor or observer limitations and not in any way "disturbing" of "frightening" - apart from actual military observers (not combat pilots) being unable to identify collision lights.

Others have already explained out why military pilots make for poor UFO witnesses, and even Hynek pointed that out.