> The 46 made the leap to a digital video feed instead of window, but is manually-operated.
How does changing from a window to digital video improve performance? A window seems to reduce complexity, though a window + zoomed video might plausibly help. It would be too bad if a plane couldn't refuel and return to the fight (or make it home) because a connection or camera or screen failed.
The hope was to eliminate the need to have an airman lying down in the back of the plane manually flying the boom to connect to the receiver aircraft, as a step towards drone tankers. This did not pan out as hoped.
Drone tankers are already a thing. The US navy has done it. This is about drone boom tankers, something that is specific to USAF. Many countries are happy with basket aar. It has some advantages over booms.
Those other countries are generally only refueling small tactical aircraft. The USAF has to also refuel large cargo aircraft and strategic bombers, so they want higher flow rates that only a large boom can deliver.
Russia only has 16 Blackjacks. The US flies and refuels many more than that during a single sortie. The basket is about three times slower than the boom, which multiples when refueling many aircraft.
How does changing from a window to digital video improve performance? A window seems to reduce complexity, though a window + zoomed video might plausibly help. It would be too bad if a plane couldn't refuel and return to the fight (or make it home) because a connection or camera or screen failed.