 FH/QPR in noise jamming with Eb/No = 20 dB. ED=5dB ED=6dE Eb = 15 dB Eb/Nu,dB Figure 1.23. Worst case p versus E,IN-FH/QPR (noise jamming). Coherent Modulation Techniques Ep=3dB ED=5dB Pb max ED=9db ED=15 Eb/N,, BB Figure 1.24. Worst case Pb versus E,IN,-FH/QPR (noise jamming). Table 1.2 Worst case performance for various modulations and jammer types. Worst case partial-band fraction Maximum average bit error probability = Spread-Spectrum Jammer Modulation FH/QPSK Multitone 0.6306 0.1311 Noise 0.7090 0.0829 FH/QASK-16 Multitone 1.5765 0.2459 Noise 1.758 0.1555 FH/PN/QPSK Multitone 0.9220 0.0789 Noise 0.7090 0.0829 FH/PN/QASK-16 Multitone 2.3050 0.1483 Noise 1.758 0.1555 FH/QPR-3 Multitone 1.6058 0.5009 Noise 1.1532 0.2014 A Basis for a Jamming Game Figures 1.22-1.24 characterize the performance of FH/QPR in the pres- ence of partial-band noise jamming as computed from the results given in this section. 1.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS We conclude this chapter by summarizing the asymptotic worst case jam- mer performance results for the various modulations and jammer types in the form of Table 1.2. In all cases, we consider the limiting behavior as E/ approaches infinity SO that both the worst case partial-band fraction and cor- responding maximum average bit error probability are inversely related to Eb/N. Based on the table entries, the following conclusions can be reached: FH/QASK-16 is more susceptible to jamming (noise or multitone) than FH/QPSK by about 2.73 dB. Both FH/QPSK and FH/QASK are more susceptible to multitone jam- ming by about 2 dB. FH three-level QPR is more susceptible to multitone jamming than noise jamming by about 4 dB. FH three-level QPR is more susceptible to tone and noise jammers than FH/QASK-16 by 3.09 dB and 1.12 dB, respectively. 1.10 REFERENCES [1] D.P Taylor and D. Cheung, "The effect of carrier phase error on the perfor- mance of a duobinary shaped QPSK signal," IEEE Trans. Commun., COM- 25, no. 7, pp. 738-744, July 1977. [2] W. C. Lindsey and M. K. Simon, Telecommunication Systems Eng