Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue

Mike Kanze wrote:

Jacek & all, I think the "what's better" aspects of
hose-and-drogue versus flying boom refueling should really
focus on the relative maneuverability of the "tankee"
aircraft. A "heavy" like a B-52 has considerably more
inertia than a small pointy-nose like the F/A-18. So it
makes much more sense to fuel heavies with a flying boom,
which does not have as much inertia to overcome when
close-in maneuvering is needed. While a hose-and-drogue
will "dance" much more in the airstream, the disparity in
inertia between it and a small aircraft is much less. The
F/A-18 and similar can more easily "dance" with the basket
than a "heavy" might. This doesn't make hose-and-drogue
plugs - especially night plugs - any nicer for the
"tankee," though. The emphasis is still on the "tankee" to
successfully plug... ...and hope the package is "sweet."

I've been wondering -- although it would undoubtedly
eliminate much of the cost and simplicity advantage of probe
and drogue over boom and receptacle, does anyone here think
it would it be technically possible, given modern
miniaturization, to develop a drogue with active
stabilization? After all, KC-10 booms have been FBW for 25
years or so, so given miniaturized controls and inertial
elements, could a drogue be space-stabilized so it didn't
bounce around as much in turbulence? Could you even use
fiber-optics and guide the drogue manually (in multi-place
tankers)? Would such a capability be useful, or is it just
easier to let it move around and have the a/c chase it?
Alternatively, would it be better to have the drogue seek
the probe, in somewhat similar fashion to the way a radar or
IR seeker attempts to null out error messages? Just
thinking out loud in the wee hours.

Guy