IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS I N COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 4.
MAY 1989
Fundamental Limitations on Repeater Jamrmng of
.
Frequency-Hopping Communications
DON J. TORRIERI
Abstract-The benefits of frequency hopping are potentially neu-
tralized by a repeater jammer. In this paper, fundamental limitations
on the effectiveness of repeater jamming are derived. These limitations
arise because of the geometry and the need for frequency estimation
and signal sorting. Limitations on the hopping rate, which might be
increased to counter a repeater-jamming threat, are derived from con-
sideration of practical requirements.
I. INTRODUCTION
F REQUENCY hopping allows communicators to hop
out of frequency channels with interference. The ben-
efits of frequency hopping are potentially neutralized by
a repeater jammer (also known as a follower jammer),
which is a device that intercepts a signal, processes it, and
then transmits jamming at the same center frequency. To
be effective against a frequency-hopping system, the jam-
ming energy must reach the victim receiver before it hops
to a new set of frequency channels. Thus, the greater the
hopping rate, the more protected the frequency-hopping
system is against a repeater jammer.
The jammer waveform generated by a properly de-
signed repeater is neither a tone nor a replica of the inter-
cepted signal. These waveforms are too similar to the de-
sired signal at the victim receiver to allow efficient
jamming when the jamming power level is high because
the receiver may sometimes make correct decisions by re-
sponding to the predominant jamming signal as if it were
the desired signal [ I ] . The jamming waveform is usually
a noise-modulated signal [2] that can perhaps be modeled
as a stationary Gaussian process with a narrowband power
spectrum.
Fig. 1 depicts the geometrical configuration of com-
municators and a jammer. For the repeater jamming to be
effective, we must have
where c is the speed of an electromagnetic wave, T,,, is
the processing time required by the repeater, 7 is a frac-
tion, and T,, is the dwell time of a pulse, which is the
duration of a frequency-hopping pulse and is less than or
equal to the hop duration. This inequality states that the
Manuscript received August I . 1988: revised January IS, 1989.
The author is with the U . S . Army Survivability Management Otfice,
Department ofthe Army. Headquarters. U.S. Army Laboratory Command.
Adclphl. MD 20783-1 145.
IEEE Log Number 8927183.
0733-8716/89/0500-0569$01.OO O 1989 IEEE
569
\ /
\ /
\ /
,
\
\
.-
_-___”
Fig. I . Geometrical configuration of communicators and jammer.
arrival-time delay of the jamming relative to the desired
signal at the receiver must not exceed a certain fraction
of the dwell time if the jamming is to be effective. The
value of 7 is determined by the jamming power at the
receiver, the number of symbols per frequency-hopping
pulse, and the details of the receiver design.
A rearrangement of (1) yields
dz + d3 5 (7T,I - T’,)c + d l . (2)
If the right-hand side of this inequality is regarded as a
constant, then equating the two sides defines an ellipse
with the transmitter and the receiver at the two foci. If the
repeater jammer is outside this ellipse, the jamming can-
not be effective. Fig. 1 shows a jammer located on the
boundary of the ellipse.
In addition to the geometric restrictions, there are other
problems entailed in using a repeater jammer. A large
portion of the frequency-hopping band must usually be
monitored by an interception receiver associated with the
repeater. If many signals are simultaneously intercepted
in different frequency channels, the repeater must either
divide its transmitted power among many jamming sig-
nals or attempt to isolate a small number of the inter-
cepted signals to be targeted. In the presence of many
communicators, the interception receiver may be faced
with a formidable signal-sorting problem. A specific
countermeasure to repeater jamming is the use of fre-
quency-shift keying with independent frequency synthe-
sizers for each symbol in the symbol alphabet [ 11.
A signal, pulse, or symbol is said to be “jammed” if
its reception is potentially degraded by a jamming signal
with a significant amount of energy within the passband
of the receiver.
11. SYMBOL EnnoR PROBABILITY
Because of the repeater’s processing time and the ge-
ometry, the jamming signal is not present in the victim
570
receiver during a certain portion of each frequency-hop-
ping pulse. From the definitions given previously, it fol-
lows that the duration of this portion is
Consider the repeater jamming of a digital communi-
cation system for which a suitable performance measure
is the average probability of an error in a channel symbol
P,. Let ‘Pjdenote the probability that a symbol is jammed
given that the processing time and geometry are favorable
for jamming the symbol. Among the reasons why Pi may
be less than unity are: a) the interception receiver fails to
monitor some of the frequency channels used by the com-
municators, b) the repeater jammer lacks the power to jam
all intercepted frequency-hopping communications, and
so ignores some intercepted pulses, and c) the intercep-
tion receiver fails to detect some of the pulses. If there
are many symbols per pulse, then the fraction of the sym-
bols that are geometrically susceptible to jamming is well
approximated by ( Td - Tnj) / T d . Among the susceptible
symbols, the symbol error probability is PjF, (1 -
P i ) Fnj, where F, is the conditional symbol error proba-
bility given that a symbol is jammed, and Fnj is the con-
ditional symbol error probability given that a symbol is
not jammed. Among the symbols that are not geometri-
cally susceptible to jamming, which constitute the frac-
tion TnJ/Tdof the symbols, the symbol error probability
is Fnj. Thus, after regrouping terms, we find that the aver-
age symbol error probability is
Td - Tnj Td - Tnj
P, = ~
Td
PjF,+
( 1--
Td
Let p,, denote the signal-to-jamming ratio in the pass-
band of the victim receiver. If p l , were deterministic, then
FJ would be a function of p,,; that is, F, = ( p , . ) . How-
ever, the interception receiver must estimate the carrier
frequency of each pulse and then transmit a jamming
waveform with the same carrier frequency. If the estimate
is inaccurate, less jamming power will be transmitted in
the receiver passband. Thus, p I , is a random variable, and
4 = io
( P I )mdx
F,(ptJ)f(p,,)dpI,7
where f ( p I , ) is the probability density of p,, and ( p,,)max
is the maximum value of p , , , which is realized when the
frequency estimation is perfect and any other sources of
random variation are negligible.
Suppose that it is necessary that P, 2 P , , for a com-
munication system to be disabled. We assume that F, 1
PTO> FnJsince P, > F, cannot be achieved by a repeater
and P , = FnJin the absence of repeater jamming. There-
fore, P, 2 PTO requires that TnJ< Td. Equations (3) and
(4) then imply that the processing time must satisfy
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7. NO. 4, MAY 1989
This inequality provides a fundamental upper bound on
the processing time for a repeater that is to respond rap-
idly enough to disable a victim receiver. The first two
terms of the upper bound are equal to qTd.
As an example, suppose that the targeted frequency-
hopping system uses continuous-phase frequency-shift
keying (CPFSK) as the data modulation, and the devia-
tion ratio is 0.7. It is assumed for simplicity that the fre-
quency estimation is perfect so that 6 = F, ( p , , ) , and that
the thermal noise in the victim receiver is negligible so
that Fnj = 0. The jamming waveform is modeled as band-
limited white Gaussian noise. Assuming that pt, = - 3 dB
FJ
and using the results given in [l], we obtain F, = ( p I , )
z 0.23. It is assumed that Pso = 0.1, Pi = 1, d2 d3 - +
dl = 30 km, and Td = 1.6 ms. Using ( 6 ) , we then find
that Tprmust not exceed 0.904 ms. If the jamming power
is increased so that p,, = - 6 dB, then F, =
0.29, and we
then find that TPrmust not exceed 1.048 ms.
111. FREQUENCY ESTIMATION
Let B denote the bandwidth of a frequency channel, and
let ufdenote the standard deviation of an estimate of the
+ carrier frequency of an intercepted frequency-hopping
pulse. From Chebyshev’s inequality, it follows that the
probability that a random variable is within three standard
deviations of its mean value is at least 8/9. Thus, if the
frequency estimate is unbiased and 3uf IB / 2 , the prob-
ability is at least 8 / 9 that the frequency estimate and,
hence, the carrier frequency of the transmitted jamming
waveform will be within the same frequency channel as
the intercepted signal. If the repeater responds quickly
enough, then with high probability most of the jamming
power will be in the instantaneous passband of the re-
ceiver. The foregoing reasoning implies that a frequency
estimator with
B
Uf I- (7)
FJ 6
is a reasonable requirement for an interception receiver to
support a repeater jammer.
We model an intercepted frequency-hopping pulse as a
tone with an unknown initial phase. The Cramer-Rao in-
equality for an unbiased frequency estimate in the pres-
ence of white Gaussian noise is [l]
(5)
UfL
2a2T2E
(T)
’ (8)
where T is the duration of the observation interval, E is
the energy in the intercepted pulse during the observation
interval, and N 0 / 2 is the two-sided noise power spectral
density. Although it is difficult to accurately determine ut’
for a particular frequency-estimation system, this bound
provides at least a rough measure of what might be
achieved in a well-designed system.
Let pi denote the signal-to-noise ratio in one frequency
channel at the input to the frequency-estimation system of
the interception receiver. Thus, E / N , = piBT. Combin-
ing this relation with (7) and (8), we obtain
T L 1J6B-I ( pi ) - ‘ I 3 , (9)
TORRIERI FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATIONS O N REPEATER JAMMING 57 I

which gives the lower bound on T that must be satisfied

to achieve a satisfactory frequency estimate with high
probability. Since TPr > T , this lower bound also bounds
Tpr.
As an example, suppose that B = 25 kHz and p, = 10
dB. Inequality (9) then implies that T,, > T 1 33 ps is
required. Thus, in this example, more than 33 ps of a
frequency-hopping pulse must be processed to make an
adequate estimate of its carrier frequency. Since T cannot INTERCEPTION
RECEIVER
exceed T,, an adequate estimate cannot be made if T,, I
Fig. 2 . Angular sectors relative to the interception receiver.
33 ps.

IV. DIRECTION-OF-ARRIVAL SORTING formly distributed over a sector of Q rad, as illustrated in

Fig. 2 , then the number of pulses jammed over an average
If a large number of frequency-hopping signals are
hop duration will be approximately ( 2 + ~ 6a,) N / Q or
simultaneously intercepted, the repeater may not be ca-
N , whichever is smaller. If the repeater can generate at
pable of jamming every intercepted pulse, because of lim-
most J jamming signals over an average hop duration, then
itations on either total power or processing. Therefore,
the repeater may jam only a fraction of the pulses of each
frequency-hopping signal. As the fraction falls, P, falls. J Imin [(” N ] (11)
If
is necessary for the repeater to respond with high proba-
bility to all the pulses emanating from the targeted sector.
To determine a’, the type of bearing estimator must be
specified. Here, we consider the phase interferometer be-
then inequality (6) cannot be satisfied. This failure indi- cause it is the bearing estimator most commonly used
cates that the repeater cannot impose P, 1 Pso, even if against narrowband pulses. From the Cramer-Rao in-
the processing time is arbitrarily small. equality, it is found that a phase interferometer that makes
The obvious solution to the problem is signal sorting. an unbiased bearing estimate in the presence of white
If the frequency-hopping pulses have identical wave- Gaussian noise produces a standard deviation satisfying
forms, then the sorting might plausibly be based on mea-
surements of the amplitudes, directions of arrival, or times
of arrival of the pulses. However, the terrain and multi-
path dependence of the propagation losses [ I ] usually
make amplitude discrimination impractical. where fo is the carrier frequency of the intercepted pulse,
In direction-of-arrival sorting, the bearing between the 4 is its bearing, 141 < ~ / 2 and, d is the distance be-
interception receiver and the source or transmitter of a tween the two most widely separated antennas of the phase
pulse is estimated for each intercepted pulse. The bearing interferometer. Letj,, denote the smallest frequency in the
to the victim receiver cannot be determined because it is sets of frequencies used by the frequency-hopping sig-
not transmitting, so in general the jamming energy will nals. Sincef, 1 A?,,cos 4 I I , and E / N O = p j B T , ( 1 2 )
have to be spread over a wide angular sector to make it yields
likely that the victim receiver will be jammed.
Suppose that a repeater attempts to disrupt communi-
cation systems that receive frequency-hopping pulses em-
anating from directions within E rad of a direction denoted If Tprsatisfies ( 6 ) , then ( 6 ) , (13), and T ITPrimply that
by 4o rad, as illustrated in Fig. 2 . The targeted sector
extends over 2 6 rad and may contain more than one fre-
quency-hopping transmitter. Let U, denote the standard
deviation of a bearing estimate. Suppose that the repeater
transmits a jamming signal whenever a pulse is measured
as arriving from the sector between 4o - t - 3a, and c$o
+ t + 3a, rad, which encompasses the targeted sector. If ( 1 1) is to be satisfied and 26 + 60, < Q , then (1 1) and
From Chebyshev’s inequality, it follows that the proba-
bility that a single pulse from the targeted sector will be (14) yield
jammed is at least 8/9. However, some pulses from ex-
traneous sources outside the targeted sector will also be
-+
J 1 2cN (-)
3Nc ( p,B)-’/2
Q QTJd
jammed. Suppose that there are N sources simultaneously
transmitting frequency-hopping signals over the same to-
tal hopping band. If these N sources generate sufiicient
power to be intercepted and they are approximately uni-
572 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. I. NO. 4. MAY 1989

If J > 2 e N / Q , (15) can be inverted to determine the min-

imum value of pi necessary for repeater jamming to be
adequate when direction-of-arrival sorting is used. The
result is

* [Td -
Td(psO - F ~ J-) d2
' J ( 4- ' n , )
+ d3 - dl
C
1'.
( 16) I '.. ---_--_---
-- --__
This inequality explicitly indicates the importance of the .,' J I N = 0.07 ---___
-----__-----__
normalized target sector, 2 e / Q , which might be deter- 5 1 '\..,

mined by how accurately the bearings to the transmitters

associated with the victim receivers are known. Direc-
tion-of-arrival sorting is inadequate unIess ~ E / < Q J/N.
As an example, consider an extension of the example
given in Section 11. It is assumed that Pso = 0.1, F, =
0.29, FnJ = 0 , d2 + d3 - d , = 30 km, B = 25 kHz-, PJ
= 0.89, d = 1.5 m, f m = 30 MHz, and e / Q = 0.02. Fig.
3 shows the lower bound on pI as a function of Td for
several values of J / N . The results in this figure illustrate
the mutual advantage of many frequency hoppers trans-
mitting simultaneously.
One might consider dividing the total hopping band into
several regions, each of which is used by a subset of the
hoppers. This procedure would simplify frequency man-
agement and reduce the mutual interference among trans-
mitters and receivers in close proximity to each other.
However, the decrease in the number of hoppers in each
spectral region would greatly facilitate direction-of-ar-
rival sorting by an interception receiver that monitored a
single spectral region rather than the total hopping band.
V . TIME-OF-ARRIVAL SORTING
Signal sorting on the basis of the times of arrival of the
frequency-hopping pulses is possible if the hopping rates
are known or can be accurately estimated. To simplify the
subsequent analysis, it is assumed that the hopping rates
and, hence, the hop durations of the signals emanating
from designated targets are perfectly estimated. If J fre-
quency-hopping signals are to be jammed, then these J
signals must be isolated from all other intercepted signals.
It is assumed that for each of these J signals, an initial
pulse can be identified. The interception receiver then uses
the known hop duration to establish a time window within
which the leading edge, or possibly the center, of the next
pulse is expected to occur. All pulses that do not have
leading edges within this window are rejected. Thus, the
pulses emanating from a single source can be identified
and jammed.
The correct pulse is sorted only if it arrives within the
assigned time window. It is assumed that if more than one
pulse arrives within this window, the repeater ignores
them all. Therefore, if N frequency-hopping signals are
detectable in the spectral band monitored by the intercep-
tion receiver, then P, is upper bounded by the probability
Fig. 3 . Required signal-to-noise ratio for direction-of-arrival sorting as
function of pulse dwell time. Parameter values are P,,,= 0. I , F, = 0.29,
+
F,,, = 0, d2 d7 - d , = 30 km, B = 25 kHz, P, = 0.89, d = 1.5 m.
J,,= 30 MHz, and e / Q = 0.02. J / N is ratio of number of jamming
signals to number of frequency-hopping signals.
that none of the other N - 1 extraneous hoppers transmits
a pulse that arrives within this window. Let U, denote the
standard deviation of the arrival-time estimate of the cor-
rect pulse. We assume that the window is 6u, in duration
and is centered about the expected arrival time so that the
probability is high that the correct pulse is sorted. If the
pulses due to the other N - 1 hoppers are assumed to
arrive independently at random times within Td seconds
and U, I T d / 6 , then the probability that no extraneous
pulses arrive within the window is ( 1 - 6 0 , / T ~ / ) ~ - l .
Therefore, for a symbol of a targeted signal,
If it is necessary that P,, IPso for a communication sys-
tem to be jammed, then T,,j < T,I is required, and (4) yields
the requirement that
Combining (17) and ( 1 8 ) , we obtain an upper bound on
U, that must be satisfied if the repeater is to be successful.
The result is
From the Cramer-Rao inequality, it is found that an
unbiased estimate of the arrival time of one pulse relative
to another one in the presence of white Gaussian noise
must satisfy [ I ]
-1/2
(20)
NO
TORRIERI: FUNDAMENTAL LlMlTATlONS ON REPEATER JAMMING 573

where /3, is a function of the spectral characteristics of the

pulses. For a signal with a uniform Fourier transform over N = 100, Tpl = 1.0 ms
a one-sided bandwidth B , ------
- NN == 100, Tp, = 0.5 ms
100, Tpr = 0.1 ms
-.--- N = 30 T - 0.5 ms
T2B2 N = 30: 1;: I 0.1 ms
i3; =3. (21)

Substituting (21) and E / N o = piBT into (20), we obtain

(22)

Substituting T 5 T,, and combining (22) and (19), we

determine the minimum value of pi necessary for success-
ful jamming. The result is

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1
Td (msl
Fig. 4. Required signal-to-noise ratio for time-of-arrival sorting as func-
tion of pulse dwell time. Parameter values are P , , , = 0. I , F, = 0.29, F,,,
= 0, dz + d, - d , = 30 km, and B = 25 kHz.

(23)
which is valid provided that Td ( P , - Fri,) < ( Td - TriJ) V O W E L L TIME-:
I I
( F , - FIv ). If the latter inequality is not satisfied, then
neither (19) nor (23) can be satisfied.
As an example, consider an extension of the examples ,
1 '
RISE
1
'
,

1TIME
FALL IC
I

given in Sections I1 and IV. Let Pro = 0.1, FJ = 0.29, I TIME 7 I

+
Flil = 0, d2 d3 - d l = 30 km, and B = 25 kHz. Fig.
4 shows the lower bound on pI as a function of T,/ for
various combinations of N and Tpr, The curves indicate
that a large value of T,:, which is necessary to accom-
modate a long observation interval, is useful to the re-
peater only if T,Iexceeds some minimum value.
The ideal time-of-arrival sorting described in this sec-
tion depends upon a fixed interval between the frequency-
hopping pulses generated by a single transmitter. If the
targeted communication system uses a variable interval,
time-of-arrival sorting is much more difficult.
Most of the preceding results are derived under the as-
sumption that there are many symbols per pulse. The
modifications for other cases, such as the transmission of
one symbol per pulse, are straightforward.
VI. LIMITATIONS O N HOPPINGRATE
The obvious response to a threat of repeater jamming
is to increase the hopping rate. However, the following
three major problems arise as the hopping rate increases:
1) the cost of the frequency synthesizer increases and its
reliability decreases, 2) synchronization becomes more
difficult, and 3) limitations on the switching time become
obstacles. The third problem, which usually poses the
most fundamental limitations on the hopping rate, is ana-
lyzed in this section.
The various time durations associated with each pulse
of a frequency-hopping signal are illustrated in Fig. 5.
The hop duration is the duration of the time interval be-
tween changes in frequency, which is called the hop in-
terval. The dead time is the duration of the part of the hop
interval during which the frequency synthesizer produces
I TIME ?-
-HOP DURATION-
Fig. 5 . Time durations associated with a pulse.
no output. The switching time is the dead time plus the
rise time and the fall time of a pulse. The nonzero switch-
ing time decreases the duration of transmitted symbols,
which in turn affects the transmitted spectrum. The dwell
time of a pulse is the duration of the dwell interval during
which the pulse has its full amplitude and the channel
symbols are transmitted. A buffer circuit is required to
store code or data symbols during the switching time. The
contents of the buffer are extracted and transmitted during
the dwell time.
The switching time, T,,,., plus the dwell time, Td,,, is
equal to the hop duration, Th;that is,
Th = Td,, + T,,,. . (24)
The rise time, T,, plus the fall time, T f , plus the dead
time, Tde,is equal to Tsw;that is,
T,, = T, Tde , (25) + +
Let y denote the required transmission rate of channel
symbols. The number of symbols that must be transmitted
during a hop interval is yT,, if this number is constant
from hop to hop. Therefore,
y Th Ts, Tdw =(26)
where T, denotes the duration of a channel symbol trans-
mitted during the dwell time. Combining (24) to (26), we
obtain
Th( 1 - y T , ) = T, Tf Tde. (27) + +
514 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS. VOL. I. NO. 4. MAY 1989
This equation indicates that y I 1 / T 5 , which is obvious
from the definitions.
The switching time usually cannot be arbitrarily de-
creased for the following reasons.
1) To limit the transmission of spurious frequencies
when an indirect frequency synthesizer is used, it may be
necessary to inhibit the transmitter output during fre-
quency transitions.
2) If a pulse rises too abruptly, ringing in the output of
the receiver’s intermediate-frequency (IF) filter may se-
riously degrade the first symbol of the dwell interval.
3) Time may be needed for the IF filter to recover from
one pulse before the next one is received.
4) Spectral splatter, which is the spectral overlap in ex-
traneous frequency channels produced by a time-limited
transmitted pulse, increases as the rise and fall time de-
crease.
The first symbol of the dwell interval may be seriously
degraded by the phase discontinuities in the dehopped sig-
nal. A phase discontinuity may be caused by 1) a Doppler
shift, 2) frequency-selective fading, 3) a nonzero dead
time, or 4) imperfect synchronization in the receiver.
For combat net radios [3]-[5], which often operate in
close proximity to combat net radios in different nets, the
most serious limitation on the switching time is often due
to the spectral splatter. The spectral splatter from one fre-
quency-hopping signal can cause errors in the reception
of another frequency-hopping signal even though the two
signals have widely separated instantaneous carrier fre-
quencies [ 13. To reduce the amount of splatter into nearby
nets and to limit the other deleterious effects of a small
switching time, it is necessary that neither T,. nor Tr be
much less than T,, which is itself largely determined by
the bandwidth of a single frequency channel and the need
to limit the splatter. Thus, we require that
min (T,., T,-) > CYT,, (28)
where CY is a constant that typically satisfies 1 ICY I4.
The exact value of CY is a function of the shapes of the
pulse edges.
Let rh = 1/ Th denote the hopping rate and r, = 1/T,
denote the symbol rate during the dwell interval. Substi-
tuting (28) into (27), we obtain
r - ,.
This inequality must be satisfied if the spectral splatter,
and possibly the other problems arising from a short
switching time, are to be accommodated.
As an example of the application of (as), consider dig-
ital communications with y = 16 kbits/s, which is the
standard rate in combat net radios. Let Tde = 0, r, = 20
kbits/s, and CY = 1. Inequality (29) then yields rh < 2
khops/s. The fraction of the time that symbols are trans-
mitted is Td,/Th = y T , = y / r s = 0.8. If CY = 2, then rh
< I khop/s. From these results, it appears that combat
net radios cannot have hopping rates greater than 1 to 2
khops/s unless either 1) serious spectral splatter and other
problems are tolerated, 2) y is lowered, or 3) r, is raised.
For voice communications, the lowering of y requires an
increase in the implementation complexity and possibly a
loss of voice quality. A substantial increase in rr may re-
quire an increase in the bandwidth of a frequency channel
beyond the conventional 25 or 50 kHz.
Consider a frequency-hopping system for which there
are no problems of multiple-access interference or spec-
tral splatter. If a direct frequency synthesizer [6] is used,
it is possible to adequately suppress spurious frequencies
while keeping T,, negligibly small relative to Td,,..Sup-
pose that there is no code symbol transmitted during the
first T, seconds of the dwell interval. This tactic prevents
the amplitude changes, phase changes, and effects of the
IF filter memory from affecting the first code or data sym-
bol in the dehopped signal. Therefore, Th = TdM= yTh T,
+ T,. Using rh = 1/ T h and r, = 1/ T , , we obtain
rh = r, - y. (30)
This requirement is clearly much different from that given
by (29).
VII. COMMENTS A N D CONCLUSIONS
Since the very beginning of the use of frequency-hop-
ping communications, the specter of repeater jamming has
loomed in the minds of system developers. In this paper,
the Cramer-Rao inequality and other fundamental rela-
tions are used to probe the ultimate limits of the effec-
tiveness of a repeater jammer. A lower bound on T, the
duration of the observation interval required for frequency
estimation, is derived in Section 111. In Section IV, a lower
bound is derived for J , the number of frequency-hopping
signals that must be simultaneously jammed when direc-
tion-of-arrival sorting is used. In Sections IV and V, lower
bounds are derived for p I , the required signal-to-noise ra-
tio in one frequency channel at the input to the intercep-
tion receiver, when either direction-of-arrival or time-of-
arrival sorting is used.
Considerably larger values of p l , J, and T than are in-
dicated by the bounds may be required for the following
reasons.
1) The Cramer-Rao bound is known to be usually loose
whenE/No < 10dB.
2) Even if the Cramer-Rao bound is tight, it remains a
bound that can only be attained by an ideal estimator. A
practical estimator, such as an adaptive thresholding sys-
tem for arrival-time estimation [I], may well exhibit a
significantly larger standard deviation than is indicated by
the Cramer-Rao bound.
3) Various idealizations, such as the perfect estimation
of the hopping rate in time-of-arrival sorting, are made to
keep the analysis tractable.
4) The time required for processing may be signifi-
cantly larger than the length of the observation interval;
that is, T 5 Tprmay provide a loose bound.
5) Multipath signals degrade both direction-of-arrival
and time-of-arrival sorting.
Despite the potential looseness of the derived bounds,
they indicate important irreducible limitations on the ex-
tent of the repeater threat.
T O R R I E R I : F U N D A M E N T A L L I M I T A T I O N S ON R E P E A T E R J A M M I N G
The parameter values chosen in the numerical examples
of Sections 11, IV, and V are those typical of a combat net
radio and a high-power jammer. If the radio hops at a rate
of 500 hops/s or more and transmits energy during ap-
proximately 80 percent of a hop interval so that T,, 5 1.6
ms, the analysis indicates that a repeater will be faced
with a severe challenge when many frequency-hopping
communicators are present. However, if T(, > 3 ms,
which is true for all or nearly all currently used or planned
combat net radios, then signal sorting and successful re-
peater jamming are potentially much simpler. In Section
VI, the limitations on the hopping rate are examined.
From the results, it appears that a combat net radio that
hops at 500-1000 hops/s is a viable possibility, but one
that hops at more than 1 khop/s may create unacceptable
levels of spectral splatter and other practical problems.
REFERENCES
[ 11 D. Torrieri, Principles of Secure Communication Systems.
MA: Artech House, 1985.
[2] L. Van Brunt, Applied ECM, Vol. I . Dunn Loring, VA: EW Engi-
neering, 1978.
575
131 P. J . Munday and M . C . Pinches, "Jaguar-V frequency-hopping radio
system,'' IEE Proc., vol. 129. pt. F , p. 213, June 1982.
141 D. M. Russell, "Tactical radios designed to elude enemy jammers."
Dejense Elecrrori., vol. I I O , June 1983.
151 M. Kachmar, "SINCGARS from ITT-The Army's radios grow up,"
Microwaves & RF. vol. 29. Apr. 1984.
161 U. Rohde. Digital PLL Frequency Syrirhesi;crs. Englewood Cliffs.
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983.
Don J . Torrieri received the B S degree from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, the M S degree from the Polytechnic
University, New York, and the Ph.D. degree i n
electrophysics from the University of Maryland.
College Park.
He ha5 analyzed electronic systems at the Nd-
val Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. and
since 1977 he has been employed by the United
States Army His primary interests are the analy-
sis and assessment of communication systems and
Dedham. electronic countermeasures He is the author of Princrples of Secure Coni-
munication Systems (Dedham, MA. Artech House, 1985) and a contributor
to Acousro-Optic Signal Processrng (N. J . Berg and J N. Lee, Eds , New
York: Marcel Dekker, 1983)