How do fighter pilots coordinate air strikes with ground forces during ground attack operations?

The complexity of tactical air-ground coordination

In modern conflicts, coordination between a fighter pilot and ground units is a complex technical process, where effectiveness depends on the quality of communications, the accuracy of sensors, and tactical discipline. A ground attack carried out by a fighter jet does not rely solely on firepower or onboard technology. It requires close synchronization with ground forces, particularly in asymmetric or urban contexts, where front lines are shifting and the risk of friendly fire is high.

This work relies on digital tools, encrypted data links, specialized operators, and precise operating procedures. The main objective remains the rapid neutralization of a threat without damaging allied units or civilian infrastructure. Modern armies have integrated this requirement by establishing specific tactical structures such as Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs), who are responsible for direct liaison with pilots.

This article analyzes each phase of coordination, from initial intelligence to the final attack, including target identification, legal validation, encrypted communications, and securing the area. We will also see how NATO, Russian and Israeli doctrines differ in this regard, and what the current limitations of air-ground coordination systems are, particularly in a jammed or saturated environment.

A hierarchical structure dedicated to air-ground coordination

The coordination of ground attacks carried out by fighter aircraft is based primarily on a rigid doctrinal structure that defines who orders, who validates, and who strikes. In Western armies, particularly within NATO, this structure is ensured by the integration of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) within ground combat units. This specialist is trained to guide tactical aircraft in real time and ensure secure communication between the ground and the aircraft.

The JTAC operates from a coded communication line, often using encrypted UHF/VHF radios and SATCOM terminals. They transmit precise information on the target’s position via the standard 9-Line protocol, which contains nine essential data lines: GPS position, nature of the target, type of surrounding threat, impact point coordinates, presence of civilians, etc. This transmission allows the fighter pilot to have an instant read of the situation and engage in a strike with a reduced risk of collateral damage.

Data links, such as Link 16, also enable digital synchronization between aircraft and ground forces. The real-time data stream displays the position of all participants on dynamic maps, often on multifunction displays (MFDs) in the cockpit. This system is crucial for avoiding errors in dense combat environments.

At the same time, an air coordination officer in the operational center (CAOC) oversees tactical engagement across the theater. They authorize or suspend fire according to rules of engagement (ROE) and integrate support requests into the overall sequence of the maneuver.

Digital tools for tactical precision

The success of a ground attack depends on the fighter pilot‘s ability to identify, lock onto, and neutralize a moving target, sometimes in an environment saturated with transmitters and countermeasures. Onboard systems play a central role here. Aircraft such as the Rafale and F-35 are equipped with multi-frequency sensors, AESA radar, laser designation pods such as Talios or Sniper ATP, and sometimes an IRST (Infrared Search and Track) system.

The JTAC can designate a target using coded laser, which the aircraft’s sensor picks up from a distance to lock onto the target. Transmission can also be via GPS coordinates, transmitted in real time via a Link 16 link. The aircraft’s mission management system then integrates this data into the fire control computer to optimize the angle and trajectory of the guided munition.

The munitions used are often GPS-guided bombs (JDAM) or laser-guided bombs (GBU-12, GBU-49), with a circular error probability (CEP) of less than 10 meters. However, the fighter pilot retains the ability to make a final decision, particularly if civilians are detected at the last moment. In urban combat, this tactical autonomy is crucial.

The Israeli forces, for example, make extensive use of MALE drones (Heron, Hermes 900) in direct support to provide continuous aerial surveillance, combined with strikes by manned aircraft. This hybrid approach enables persistent intelligence gathering and better coordination.

Operational limitations and risks of real-time error

Despite the tools available, coordination between fighter jets and ground troops remains fragile in certain contexts. Electronic jamming, human error, and high civilian density make operations complex. The case of Afghanistan in 2009, where a NATO raid killed dozens of civilians following misidentification of targets, illustrates these flaws.

One recurring problem is the latency between target designation and impact. An enemy combatant can leave the area before the explosion, especially if the munition is not supersonic. In addition, some adversaries exploit the time lag between political approval of the strike and actual engagement to move civilians out of the target area.

Electronic warfare is another factor contributing to disorganization. Enemy jammers (such as the Russian Krasukha or Chinese DKW-3 systems) can temporarily disable data links, forcing pilots to fall back on backup procedures. These situations require a return to voice radio, with a risk of saturation or misunderstanding, particularly in multilingual coalitions.

Finally, the doctrines of some countries, such as Russia, favor more rigid coordination, with strikes planned from remote command centers and little delegation to the field. This reduces responsiveness but limits tactical errors due to improvisation.

Intensive training for seamless coordination

The effectiveness of this coordination depends above all on the training of those involved. Early on in their training, fighter pilots receive specialized modules on Close Air Support (CAS). They learn how to read a tactical map, use the 9-Line protocol, interact with a JTAC, and deal with the ambiguity of a dynamic environment.

JTACs, meanwhile, follow a demanding certification program. They must simulate dozens of ground attack situations in rural, urban, and forest environments, both day and night. Once certified, they regularly participate in joint exercises. The total cost of training a JTAC is estimated at between $250,000 and $300,000, according to NATO standards.

Exercises such as Bold Quest, Green Flag and Orion allow these procedures to be tested in realistic conditions. The aim is to ensure total interoperability between aircraft, helicopters, drones, artillery and infantry.

Future technological developments should enable better data fusion, with the integration of artificial intelligence into mission management systems and augmented tactical helmets providing pilots with instant visualization of the tactical situation. But even with these tools, the quality of coordination still depends on discipline, clarity of orders, and experience gained in real-world conditions.

Get in touch to live a unique fighter jet experience – we fly in France AND YOU CAN TAKE THE CONTROLS!!!