Even though the only thing I ever had trouble keeping plugged in was a heavy two seat Harrier that did not really have enough push to deal with a Victor centre hose at high altitude I offer some comments.
Some people seem to be assuming that lots of civil flights could finish up doing AAR but that was not how I read the thrust of the article.
Some people are worried about not getting fuel. Why? Just another case for a diversion.
I think all of the present military need for skill, currency requirements and associated issues would never apply because a civil system would only be certificated if it was easy and safe – namely automatic. If I was a boffin I would sooner have to develop such a system than one that actually lands the aircraft when the crew can not see the runway because of fog. A FBW drogue that homed on a probe would not stretch modern robotics at all.
As a passenger I would be pleased not to have 20 hours fuel on board when any abnormality transpired during take-off.
I see modern airliner and cargo operations as a pure market driven commodity and so would not rule out any development (not just AAR) that might become possible in the future if it opened a new market or gave a competitive advantage in an existing one.
Pilots in general have been too quick to shout NO regarding many things in the past which have nevertheless happened very nicely thank you. In my view by doing this they weaken their case to be treated as thinking professionals. A more reasonable response that results in them being asked to the meetings is “Sounds a good idea but we will need to resolve a few issues first”
Finally, think about how any exhaust gases that we dump in the atmosphere below the tropopause get mixed and washed out by weather. The same stuff dumped in the stratosphere stays there. The pressure to cruise lower is going to come. That will change designs and operational procedures to put it mildly.