critical parameter is proportional to 2K/K. In the inverse lin- ear performance regions, the advantage of worst case n = 1 band multitone jamming over partial-band noise is ((2.25) and (2.41)) (2.42) where B has been computed by Houston [5, (16); or see our corrected Table 2.1 above]. In particular, ( = 4.3 dB at K = 1, and 10.5 dB at K = 4. Since B decreases monotonically with K, the effectiveness of the worst case partial-band noise and n = 1 band multitone jamming schemes continues to diverge as K increases. Figure 2.13 illustrates that for a given value of K, when Eb/N, falls below the threshold specified in (2.40), the entire SS bandwidth is saturated with one jamming tone per M-ary band. In this saturation region, u = 1 and p = 1/M (refer to (2.28) and (2.38)), and the jamming tone power rises above S. For larger values of E/N, awc = 1 and and p asymptotically approach zero. We now turn to the general class of band multitone jamming with N. 1 tones per jammed band. Because a jammed band will contain at least two interfering tones, there is now the possibility of simultaneously hitting the data symbol and at least one other M-ary symbol in the dehopped band. Consequently, the random jamming phase arguments summarized in Table 2.2 are applicable here. The band containing a transmitted data symbol will be jammed with prob- ability defined in (2.38). Conditioned on this event, the probability that one of the n jamming tones hits the data symbol is (2.43) As discussed in Section 2.2.2.1, a symbol error occurs only if (i) the data sym- bol is not jammed, any of the other symbols is hit, and a, 1, or (ii) the data symbol is jammed along with any of the other symbols, the random jamming phase lies in the range defined by (2.35), and a, 4: (2.44) where u_1() is the unit step function. Invoking (2.38) and constraining Non-Coherent Frequency-Hopped Systems 1, we find that the worst case performance is given by 1)Eb/NJ (2.45) Before performing the maximization over a in (2.45), it is instructive to determine the behavi