.11 dB with m = 13. For these values of K, Eb/N, and m, (2.64) (or (2.70)) shows that the jammer will maximize the P upperbound at 10-5 if he uses p = 3/4; any other choice of p would result in a lower Ph upperbound. So the advan- tage to the communicator of designing his system parameters based on (2.70) is that it guarantees a minimum performance level for any patial- band noise jammer. Suppose the communicator anticipates that the jammer will use p = 3/4, or discovers this by monitoring the interference or utilizing covert methods. He may elect to simplify his system implementation by eliminating the diver- sity (m = 1): then, the exact performance is given by ((2.24) without the max- imization over p) (2.73) with K = 4, M = 16, and p = 3/4. The desired Pb of 10-5 can now be real- ized with Eb/N, reduced to 9.23 dB, representing a savings of about 1.9 dB (remember that we are comparing an exact result with an upperbound) over the m = 13 case. The risk in such a strategy is that the jammer may somehow discover that the communicator is not using diversity and retal- iate by reducing p to about 5 X 10-5, which would require Eb/N1 = 42.56 dB to achieve the desired Pb. So, in electing to use m = 1, the communi- cator could save less than 1.9 dB at the cost of a possible degradation of more than 31.5 dB. The prudent approach is to accept the guaranteed per- formance of (2.70). Non-Coherent Frequency-Hopped Systems 2.3.1.2 Band Multitone Jamming We now turn to the performance of FH/MFSK signals with m-diversity in a band multitone jamming environment. Recall from Section 2.22, and par- ticularly Figure 2.10, that this a highly structured jamming strategy in which an M-ary band is jammed with probability (refer to (2.28)), and a jammed band contains exactly n jamming tones, each with power Sla (see (2.31)), where a is a parameter to be optimized by the jammer. With m-diversity, the expression for in (2.38) has the modified form (2.74) since Rs = mRb/K in (2.37). For the special case of n = 1 and K = 1, we can readily 