ally indicates a more capable anti-jam system; however, if two systems have comparable values kR'/y, the one with the smaller coef- ficient nC will provide better performance. If we compare systems restricted to worst case partial-band noise (y = 4), or worst case tone jamming with a fixed K, y is fixed and the exponential coefficient kR' (see Table 2.17) is often a sufficient performance indicator, with a minor impact from C (n is fixed for a given jammer). Table 2.17 shows us why the performance of the dual-K systems are asymptotically independent of the code rate 1/v for small Pb's: C and kR' are not functions of v. And since kR' = K for both the uncoded and M- ary orthogonal convolutionally coded systems, their performance is asymptotically similar, with the orthogonal convolutional code achieving a slight advantage because its factor C is smaller for K > 2. Another obser- vation made earlier based on Figures 2.87-2.96 and Table 2.16 is that the dual-K systems provide 3 dB better AJ performance than uncoded sys- tems with optimum diversity at low error rates; Table 2.17 shows that this behavior occurs because both systems have the same factor C, while the dual-K scheme's exponential coefficient kR' is double that of the uncoded implementation. Table 2.17 also reveals some other heretofore unnoted asymptotic performance comparisons. In particular, the (7, 1) Odenwalder (binary) and Trumpis (M-ary) convolutional codes are modestly superior to their (7,1) counterparts primarily because of their smaller values of C rather than due to any exponential advantage: this is underscored by the fact that kR' is actually smaller for the rate 1/3 binary convolutional code. If we temporarily restrict our attention to the noise jamming case where y = 4 independent of K, we can use Table 2.17 to make some interesting comparisons of systems with different channel alphabets. For example, based on the exponential coefficient kR', we see that the uncoded system with optimum diversity begins to exceed the asymptotic performance of