## 5 Results
### Positioning Performance Analysis
The jamming start time and end time estimated by the detector for Scenario II are at the 97 th and 148 th second, respectively, resulting in a jamming period of 51 s, as shown in Table 1. The test window of unaffected signals is also kept the same in order to offer a fair comparison. As seen in Table 5, GPS L1 C/A is the most severely affected, followed by BeiDou B1 and Galileo E1. Furthermore, multi-constellation (in this case, L1/E1/B1) performs better than each of the individual signals at the time of jamming, demonstrating the importance of having multiple constellations for minimizing the jamming impact on the positioning accuracy. Signals in L5, E5a, and E5b bands, on the other hand, offer expected positioning performance since the L5/E5 frequency band is completely unaffected by jamming. Positioning accuracy of Galileo E5a and E5b is steady with a 3D-RMS of roughly 2 m. Better horizontal accuracy with the combination of GPS L5, Galileo E5a, and Galileo E5b can also be observed from Table 5.  
Table 6 presents the positioning performance of Scenario III. Similarly, the test window for affected and unaffected signals is kept the same. Since deliberate jamming is carried out on the L5/E5a/E5b bands, it is expected that the jamming influence would be seen mostly on the L5/E5a/E5b bands. As shown in Table 6, despite being jammed, the positioning performance of GPS L5, Galileo E5a, and Galileo E5b signals is relatively stable and slightly degraded compared with the jamming-free situation in Scenario I. Larger code length, higher chipping rate, along with higher receiver bandwidth increase the robustness of L5/E5a/E5b signals against wideband jamming, resulting in less performance degradation during jamming when compared with the L1/E1/B1 signals in Scenario II. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Scenario IV (Jamming on Both L1/E1/B1 and L5/E5a/E5b Bands)**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**GNSS Signals**} & **Horizontal** & **Vertical** & \multirow{3}{*}{**3D-RMS**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**PDOP**} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(\mathbf{N}_{\text{sat}}\)} \\  & **RMS** & **RMS** & & **(m)** & \\  & **(m)** & **(m)** & & & \\ \hline L1 & 6.29 & 12.05 & 13.60 & 1.69 & 8 \\ L5 & 2.91 & 5.68 & 6.38 & 4.22 & 5 \\ B1 & 2.63 & 5.19 & 5.82 & 3.40 & 6 \\ E1 & 5.87 & 7.94 & 9.88 & 2.00 & 8 \\ E5a & 1.73 & 2.42 & 2.98 & 2.00 & 8 \\ E5b & 1.78 & 1.98 & 2.66 & 2.12 & 7 \\ L1 + E1 + B1 & 3.14 & 3.97 & 5.06 & 1.13 & 22 \\ L5 + E5a + E5b & 0.86 & 5.16 & 5.23 & 1.25 & 20 \\ MFMC (L1 + E1 + B1 + L5 + E5a + E5b) & 2.19 & 4.53 & 5.04 & 0.84 & 42 \\ Resilient MFMC & 2.19 & 4.53 & 5.04 & 0.84 & 42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Positioning accuracy of Scenario IV with different signal combinations. Table 7 shows the positioning performance of several GNSS signals where both jammers are effectively jamming both the upper and lower L-bands simultaneously. Since jamming is induced on both the lower and upper L-bands, a higher positioning error is expected compared with the nominal situation. As can be observed in Table 7, all the signals perform worse than the nominal situation. GPS L1 C/A is highly impacted during the jamming event compared with other signals. On the other hand, the positioning performance of Galileo E5a and E5b remain consistent with Scenario III. Based on the results in Table 7 and other analyses presented in this manuscript, it can be stated that higher modulation order and longer codes coupled with higher reception bandwidth allow the L5/E5 band to operate reliably better than L1/E1/B1 band in the event of moderate jamming. However, a fair comparison of jamming impact analysis on each GNSS signal can be made only when the jamming source is identical to both the signals, which is not the case for this particular experiment. Figure 10 shows a summary of the 3D-positioning performance of different GNSS signals for the mentioned four scenarios.