## 5 Results
### Positioning Performance Analysis  
Raw IF samples of GNSS signals were collected on 26 August 2021, between 8:00 to 10:00 UTC on the Helsinki-Tallinn ferry route in the Gulf of Finland. The gathered  
Figure 9: Average C/N\({}_{0}\) of tracked GNSS signals during the presence of jamming in lower and upper L-band. datasets were then analyzed in post mission using the FGI-GSRx MFMC software receiver under various signal combinations for all four scenarios, as described in Section 4. Position solution was computed with a 15-degree elevation mask and 20 dB-Hz C/N\({}_{0}\) threshold. This means that the satellite elevation has to be above 15 degrees and the C/N\({}_{0}\) has to be above 20 dB-Hz in order for the satellite to be included in the position computation. Besides, position solution was computed at 1 Hz rate using a Least Squares (LS) algorithm. Positioning accuracy of horizontal, vertical, and 3-Dimentional Root-Mean-Square (RMS) error is presented below in Tables 4-7 for Scenarios I, II, III, and IV, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Scenario III (Jamming on L5/E5a/E5b Band)**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**GNSS Signals**} & **Horizontal** & **Vertical** & \multirow{2}{*}{**3D-RMS**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**PDOP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(N_{sat}\)} \\  & **RMS** & **RMS** & & & \\  & **(m)** & **(m)** & **(m)** & & \\ \hline L1 & 1.17 & 2.37 & 2.65 & 2.41 & 6 \\ L5 & 2.04 & 6.15 & 6.48 & 3.90 & 5 \\ B1 & 2.47 & 1.18 & 2.73 & 2.35 & 7 \\ E1 & 3.30 & 3.35 & 4.70 & 2.91 & 6 \\ E5a & 2.03 & 1.97 & 2.83 & 2.38 & 7 \\ E5b & 1.81 & 1.97 & 2.67 & 2.91 & 6 \\ L1 + E1 + B1 & 0.78 & 2.47 & 2.60 & 1.29 & 19 \\ L5 + E5a + E5b & 1.05 & 3.12 & 3.29 & 1.36 & 18 \\ MFMC (L1 + E1 + B1 + L5 + E5a + E5b) & 0.782 & 2.62 & 2.73 & 0.92 & 37 \\ Resilient MFMC & 0.78 & 2.47 & 2.60 & 1.29 & 19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Positioning accuracy of Scenario III with different signal combinations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Scenario I (Nominal Situation)**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**GNSS Signals**} & **Horizontal** & **Vertical** & \multirow{2}{*}{**3D-RMS**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**PDOP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(N_{sat}\)} \\  & **RMS** & **RMS** & & & \\  & **RMS** & **RMS** & & & \\ L1 & 1.69 & 1.30 & 2.13 & 2.41 & 6 \\ L5 & 1.87 & 6.27 & 6.55 & 3.89 & 5 \\ B1 & 2.71 & 0.95 & 2.87 & 2.35 & 7 \\ E1 & 2.71 & 3.80 & 4.67 & 2.93 & 6 \\ E5a & 1.44 & 0.72 & 1.61 & 2.37 & 7 \\ E5b & 1.57 & 0.97 & 1.85 & 2.93 & 6 \\ L1 + E1 + B1 & 0. Table 4 shows positioning performance of GPS, Galileo, and BeiDou for each signal component, a combined single-frequency multi-constellation, and MFMC solution. As in Table 4, Galileo E5a has the best 3D positioning performance among all the analyzed signals. Galileo E5b offers almost similar positioning performance as of E5a with a slightly higher PDOP (Position Dilution of Precision describes the inaccuracy caused by the relative position of the navigation satellite and the user) than Galileo E5a. Since there is no intentional jamming applied in this case, both MFMC (i.e., combination of all six signals) and the proposed resilient MFMC offers the best horizontal accuracy with an excellent PDOP (<1) among all the considered signals and their combinations. As expected, Galileo E5a, Galileo E5b, and GPS L5 individually offer better horizontal positioning accuracy over all other signals even with relatively high PDOP values. It is observed that the positioning performance of GPS L5 is slightly worse than expected, which can be attributed to a fewer number of satellites in the final position solution. Table 5 presents the positioning performance of GPS, Galileo, and BeiDou for Scenario II. The test window (i.e., the duration of interest out of the whole data length) of the dataset is estimated based on the output of the jamming event detector. The Positioning solution is computed for the data duration when the jamming signal is detected to be present.