> I have the feeling that current refueling in flight procedures are clearly more vulnerable than this approach that do not require physical coupling, for whatever these are useful (increasing operation autonomy, etc) the same for having to land in air carriers to extend patrolling times, this electric alternative seem safer in both scenarios, and at least with no more weak points than the fuel alternatives. I think they are equally vulnerable, only in different ways. > And if something blow up the damage radio clearly propagate immediately further than a battery fire, though regaring the situation a persistent fire can become also problematic, but these battery issues are still experiencing improvements, same happened with fuel counterparts (self sealing deposits, etc). My point earlier: while it is true that fuel explode and the damage propagate faster, it is easier to replace a tank (trucks) than a battery that can be made useless just damaging it, no need to destroy it. > If this technology matures also recharging times will drop, we are seeing huge advances in plugged batteries. Up to a point yes, but it has physical limits (not unlike fuel refuelling, only diverse) > I still see many advantages to the concept. It can. It need to be seen if it is scale well enough to be used on more than a test in a real life situation.