Combat mission training and crew coordination are both integral parts of aircrew training. The research presented here demonstrates a direct empirical link between crew coordination and crew mission performance. Eleven Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) MC-130P aircrew, composed of two Pilots, two Navigators, one Flight Engineer (FE), and one Communication Systems Operator (CSO), were observed during the preparation and execution of a highly complex combat mission scenario in the MC-130P Weapon System Trainer (WST). Five subprocesses of crew coordination were previously identified (Time Management (TM), Function Allocation (FA), Tactics Employment (TE), Situation Awareness (SA), and Command, Control, and Communications (C3)). These subprocesses, along with several mission performance variables (e.g., chart preparation, briefing quality, mission phase performance, etc.), were observed and rated across mission preparation and four phases of execution (Low-Level (LL), Air Refueling (AR), Air Drop (AD), and Infil/Exfil (I/E)). The results demonstrate: (1) a strong positive overall process-performance correlation (r = .86); (2) differential impacts of overall process on phase-specific mission performance; (3) differential impacts of mission phase process on overall performance; and (4) differential impacts of particular subprocesses on mission phase performance. We conclude with a discussion of the training implications of our results and observations.