avatar Lockheed Martin Corporation Manufacturing
  • Location: Maryland 
  • Founded:
  • Website:

Pages

  • Page 1

    LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 2011 ANNUAL REPORT F-35B: Proud to Serve the U.S. Marines


  • Page 2

    2011 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (In millions, except per share data) 2011 2010 2009 Net Sales $46,499 $45,671 $43,867 Segment Operating Profit 5,281 5,028 5,056 Consolidated Operating Profit 3,980 4,049 4,367 Net Earnings From Continuing Operations 2,667 2,614 2,967 Net Earnings 2,655 2,878 2,973 Diluted Earnings Per Common Share Continuing Operations 7.85 7.10 7.63 Net Earnings 7.81 7.81 7.64 Cash Dividends Per Common Share 3.25 2.64 2.34 Average Diluted Common Shares Outstanding 340 368 389 Cash, Cash Equivalents and Short-Term Investments $ 3,585 $ 2,777 $ 2,737 Total Assets 37,908 35,113 35,167 Total Debt 6,460 5,019 5,052 Stockholders’ Equity 1,001 3,497 3,966 Common Shares Outstanding at Year-End 321 346 373 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities $ 4,253 $ 3,801 $ 3,487 NOTE: For additional information regarding matters affecting the comparability of the information presented above, refer to Item 6. Selected Financial Data, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data in our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. On the Cover: F-35B: Proud to Serve the U.S. Marines This F-35B Short-Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft makes its first landing on the USS WASP October 6, 2011. Lockheed Martin is developing three variants of the 5th Generation F-35 combat aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, eight international partners, and two Foreign Military Sales customers.


  • Page 3

    Dear Fellow Shareholders, This is a milestone year for Lockheed Martin: our 100th anniversary. Our company’s success over the past century is due to the exceptional character and ingenuity of the hundreds of thousands of people who have walked through the doors of our heritage companies. As this remarkable enterprise begins its second century, we and our customers face unprecedented global security challenges and an uncertain economic environment. Despite the unsettling business climate, Lockheed Martin reaffirmed its reputation as an industry leader by recording another year of excellent financial and operational results. We were well served in 2011 by a durable, well-balanced portfolio, and a strategy that focuses on execution, affordability, and the agility to respond effectively to change. Our Leadership Team: From Left to Right: Larry A. Lawson Executive Vice President, Aeronautics (effective April 1); Joanne M. Maguire, Executive Vice President, Space Systems; Marillyn A. Hewson, Executive Vice President, Electronic Systems; Robert J. Stevens, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Christopher E. Kubasik, President and Chief Operating Officer; Linda R. Gooden, Executive Vice President, Information Systems & Global Solutions; Ralph D. Heath, Executive Vice President, Aeronautics (retiring April 1); Bruce L. Tanner, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. This photograph of our leadership team against the backdrop of our NexGen Cyber Innovation and Technology Center underscores the commitment of Lockheed Martin’s leadership to protecting our customers’ networks with trusted, reliable, mission-resilient systems. Lockheed Martin addresses cyber security challenges worldwide with innovative technologies that keep us ahead of a constantly evolving threat. Cyber security is a critical component of everything we do, and every solution we develop. I 2011 Annual Report


  • Page 4

    As reflected in this report, financial results were September 2011 we created the Executive consistently strong in 2011 with sales of $46.5 Office of the Chairman to include the Chief billion, representing a two percent increase over Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer. 2010. We grew our diluted earnings per share from continuing operations to $7.85, and we Through this structure, we stay closely aligned grew our backlog to a record $80.7 billion at the on all operational and functional matters as they end of 2011. arise, and we act interchangeably and decisively to ensure we meet our customers’ expectations, Balanced cash deployment is a key element of and that we focus on excellent performance and our strategy. In 2011, we generated $4.3 billion profitable growth. We are confident this new in cash from operations after making $2.3 structure better aligns business strategy with billion in contributions to our pension plans. program execution and affordability. We deployed cash to generate shareholder value through cash dividends of $1.1 billion Additionally, we announced this year the and share repurchases of $2.4 billion. Our total appointment of Larry A. Lawson as executive shareholder return for the year was 21 percent, vice president for Aeronautics, effective outperforming all major indices. April 1. Larry, who currently serves as vice president and general manager of the F-35 Our record of strong cash generation has program, brings a keen understanding of the allowed us to pursue selected acquisitions that entire Aeronautics portfolio. He succeeds add greater depth to our portfolio. In 2011, we Ralph D. Heath, whose leadership of our completed our acquisition of QTC Holdings, Aeronautics business has been defined by Inc., the largest provider of outsourced medical innovation, attention to performance, and a evaluation services to the U.S. Government and dedication to the highest standards of ethics and Department of Veterans Affairs. Our distinction accountability. as the number one supplier of IT services to the federal government, coupled with QTC’s case Operational Excellence Drives management services and health care expertise, Financial Results now position us to help improve health care for veterans, reservists, active duty, and civilian We realize that affordability – creating greater government personnel. We also acquired efficiencies and lowering costs in everything Netherlands-based Sim-Industries, B.V., which we do – is a permanent feature of our corporate develops and manufactures flight simulators culture. We monitor all aspects of our operations for a wide range of airline customers. These to ensure we are always aligned with business acquisitions demonstrate our commitment to needs and positioned to offer value to our expand into closely related markets that build on customers. We also work closely with our our core capabilities and grow our customer base. 29,000 active suppliers to drive affordability into every program. Structuring and Managing the Enterprise for Efficiency We also recognize that the greatest contributor to the vitality of this company is solid execution Because we operate in a dynamic environment, on our customers’ programs. We have made we continuously evolve our organizational considerable progress on the development and structure to respond with even greater agility production phases of the F-35 as evidenced by and precision to changing business conditions Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s lifting of the and customer priorities. To that end, in probation on the F-35B Short-Takeoff/Vertical Lockheed Martin Corporation II


  • Page 5

    Landing (STOVL) variant on January 20, 2012. Some of our other notable achievements in Saying the F-35 “remains essential’’ for future 2011 on behalf of our customers in defense and air superiority, the Secretary’s action reflects civil government agencies in the United States the talent and tenacity of the men and women and worldwide include: working to make this program a success. • The Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Army We exceeded F-35 flight test and test point achieved the first-ever simultaneous intercept goals in 2011 with 972 test flights against a plan of two targets using two THAAD interceptors of 872, and we tallied 7,823 test points against in an operational test. Since 2005, the a plan of 6,622. We also completed the Static program has completed 12 flight tests with Structural Testing, which verified the structural nine-for-nine intercepts. This capability integrity of the airframe, ahead of schedule. On is critical to a robust missile deterrent and October 3, we saw the picture-perfect vertical defense. landing of the STOVL variant on the deck of the USS WASP, a significant milestone for • We began construction on our third Littoral the F-35 program. A second test jet landed on Combat Ship (LCS). With each ship, the deck a few days later, and over 18 days the two team continues to drive costs down through aircraft completed 72 short takeoffs and vertical efficiencies, design stability, and supplier landings. We invite you to view the video of partnerships. In addition, our second LCS, these historic flights and other F-35 milestones the Fort Worth, is on-cost and on-schedule for at our website, www.F35.com. delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2012. Aside from its success in drug smuggling interdiction, In December, Japan’s Ministry of Defense chose the LCS will play an important role in the the F-35 as that nation’s next generation fighter Asia-Pacific region as part of the Defense aircraft. Japan joins Israel as a Foreign Military Department’s new Strategic Guidance. Sales customer, and the United States and eight partner countries on this 11-nation program. • We achieved Initial Operating Capability for the FBI’s Next Generation Identification Overall, we continued to grow our international System, which will help law enforcement sales in 2011 with orders to upgrade armored take more criminals off the streets. fighting vehicles for the United Kingdom, contracts for a combined 30 F-16 aircraft to • K-MAX, our rugged and versatile unmanned Iraq and Oman, and the first international order cargo aircraft system, was deployed to to produce the Terminal High Altitude Area Afghanistan. During the first six weeks of Defense (THAAD) missile defense system for operation, the two aircraft delivered more export to the United Arab Emirates. than 100,000 pounds of cargo to forward operating bases. Lockheed Martin and partner In 2011, we also witnessed the last Space Kaman Aerospace transformed this helicopter Shuttle mission. For 30 years – in partnership into an unmanned system that can fly through with NASA – Lockheed Martin demonstrated hostile territory for the battlefield resupply a dedication to excellence on the Shuttle mission. program, supplying components, payloads, and every one of the external fuel tanks that boosted • We are in production on 29 additional the spacecraft into orbit. The next adventure in Persistent Threat Detection Systems (PTDS) space exploration has already begun, and we for the U.S. Army to support and protect are once again at the forefront with our Orion coalition forces in Afghanistan. Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. III 2011 Annual Report


  • Page 6

    • The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) to support our customers at times comes with spacecraft, launched in May, will protect our great risk. In a tragic reminder of those risks, nation and allies from missile attack with two of our colleagues were killed and two vastly improved warning capabilities. others injured during an April 2011 attack on a forward operating base in Afghanistan. They • We delivered software to the Federal Aviation were on a team providing vitally important Administration to enable GPS technology surveillance information to U.S. military and in the New York area airspace, the nation’s coalition forces, and they were dedicated to the second busiest. program, the mission, and the fight for freedom. Their sacrifice reminds us of the important • Our Juno spacecraft was launched to Jupiter work we do every day supporting deployed in August on a mission that will expand forces in the defense of liberty. our knowledge of the solar system’s largest planet. A month later, our two GRAIL Looking to the Future: Staying spacecraft were launched to the Moon in Aligned With Our Customers an effort to study the gravitational field of Earth’s closest neighbor. As a leading global security and aerospace company, we must maintain a consistent tempo These and other accomplishments are why of performance to sustain our momentum into Lockheed Martin has been acknowledged as 2012 and beyond. This is especially critical an industry leader. In 2011, Aviation Week & given the developments we see on the horizon. Space Technology named us the industry’s Top We continue to operate in a tough economy, Performing Company for an unprecedented which includes a reduction in the Department fourth consecutive year, saying that as far as of Defense budget by at least $487 billion over program performance and cost are concerned, the next decade. We also see shifting priorities “Lockheed Martin is the one to beat.’’ under Secretary Panetta’s new Strategic Guidance that put greater attention on the Aviation Week’s recognition speaks volumes Asia-Pacific region and continued focus on the about the 123,000 people of this company who Middle East. support our customers, and also give so much to our communities. For the seventh consecutive Our broad portfolio of strong programs gives us year, in 2011, our employees volunteered more the resilience to weather this budget volatility than one million hours of service to a wide and it matches extremely well with the strategic variety of worthwhile causes. priorities of our customers under the new Defense Department Guidance. Increasingly, Additionally, we are dedicated to good our customers will require the capabilities we’re stewardship of the environment. For example, best equipped to deliver, such as air and naval the Carbon Disclosure Project, in its 2011 power, missile defense, 5th Generation tactical Global 500 Report, noted Lockheed Martin as aircraft, space systems, cyber security, and leading the Aerospace and Defense industry in support for Special Operations Forces. carbon footprint reduction. With our heightened awareness of cost and affordability, we’re We are concerned, however, that we still face working hard to limit waste and conserve the possibility of U.S. budget sequestration in energy because it’s smart business and it’s the January 2013. Sequestration would result in an right thing to do for the environment. additional $1.2 trillion in automatic across-the- board cuts evenly divided between defense and The work many of our employees engage in non-defense spending over 10 years. Coupled Lockheed Martin Corporation IV


  • Page 7

    with the $487 billion already cut from the our customers and the highest degree of budget, sequestration would result in almost transparency on all our programs. a trillion-dollar reduction in defense spending over the next decade. Secretary Panetta has • Extend the value of our platforms by said that cuts of that magnitude would have shaping follow-on business and tailoring our catastrophic consequences to U.S. defense existing capabilities for new applications. We and would severely erode America’s industrial should also continue to seek and implement base. We agree. We must not let an automatic innovative business models. budget trigger become the dominant force for allocating resources and shaping the nation’s • Expand our position within targeted security posture. segments with market-based strategies. This also means more pursuits internationally, and We are strengthening the enterprise by greater synergies between Lockheed Martin adhering to a strategy that puts a premium on products. execution. Our relentless focus on execution is a significant factor in reducing the cost of • Enable meaningful growth through adjacent doing business, and our remarkable record market opportunities. We want to focus on of innovation continues to play a pivotal role markets that will move the needle for us. in keeping our portfolio relevant. Innovation allows us to build on our core, move quickly Over the course of a century, we have made and smartly as new opportunities arise, and extraordinary contributions, working with meet affordability goals. our customers, to meet our nation’s greatest challenges: victory in war, prosperity in peace, As we look ahead, we recognize that we exploration of the universe, and effective are operating at a critical inflection point as government services for our citizens. From America and her allies confront an emerging building some of the very first aircraft for the national and global security landscape. We U.S. military … to sending spacecraft across have devised a strategic blueprint based on the solar system … to meeting the diverse four imperatives: Secure, Extend, Expand, needs of the U.S. Government and its allies and Enable. This strategy, which leverages the today, the men and women of Lockheed Martin strength of our portfolio, will pave the way have always risen to the occasion with iconic through what will be, at times, an uncertain technical achievements. voyage. It will: We have no doubt we will continue to build on • Secure our existing programs by performing that record, serving with distinction, remaining with excellence. Additionally, we must true to our values, and helping to make the world continue to have candid dialogues with a safer, better place for the next 100 years. February 23, 2012 Robert J. Stevens Ch i t h E. Christopher E Kubasik K b ik Ex Chairman and Chief Executive Officer President and Chief Operating Officer V 2011 Annual Report


  • Page 8

    Corporate Directory (As of February 23, 2012) Board of Directors Nolan D. Archibald Thomas J. Falk Joseph W. Ralston Rosalind G. Brewer Gwendolyn S. King Anne Stevens David B. Burritt James M. Loy Robert J. Stevens James O. Ellis, Jr. Douglas H. McCorkindale Biographical information for each member of our Board of Directors is located in our 2012 Proxy Statement under the caption “Proposal 1 - Election of Directors.” Executive Officers Linda R. Gooden Christopher E. Kubasik Robert J. Stevens Executive Vice President President and Chairman and Information Systems & Chief Operating Officer Chief Executive Officer Global Solutions Maryanne R. Lavan Bruce L. Tanner Christopher J. Gregoire Senior Vice President Executive Vice President and Vice President and Controller General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer Corporate Secretary Ralph D. Heath Executive Vice President Joanne M. Maguire Aeronautics Executive Vice President Space Systems Marillyn A. Hewson Executive Vice President Kenneth R. Possenriede Electronic Systems Vice President and Treasurer Lockheed Martin Corporation VI


  • Page 9

    United States SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 Commission file number 1-11437 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Maryland 52-1893632 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1877 (301/897-6000) (Address and telephone number of principal executive offices) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $1 par value New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes È No ‘ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ‘ No È Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes È No ‘ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes È No ‘ Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. È Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer È Accelerated filer ‘ Non-accelerated filer ‘ Smaller reporting company ‘ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12-b2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ‘ No È State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. Approximately $26.4 billion as of June 26, 2011. Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date. Common Stock, $1 par value, 325,105,500 shares outstanding as of January 31, 2012. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Portions of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s 2012 Definitive Proxy Statement are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.


  • Page 10

    LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION FORM 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2011 CONTENTS Part I Page Item 1 Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Item 1A Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Item 1B Unresolved Staff Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Item 2 Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Item 3 Legal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Item 4 Mine Safety Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Item 4(a) Executive Officers of the Registrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Part II Item 5 Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Item 6 Selected Financial Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Item 7 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations . . . . . . . . . . 22 Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Item 8 Financial Statements and Supplementary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Item 9 Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . 83 Item 9A Controls and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Item 9B Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Part III Item 10 Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Item 11 Executive Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Item 12 Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Item 13 Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Item 14 Principal Accounting Fees and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Part IV Item 15 Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Exhibits 2


  • Page 11

    PART I ITEM 1. BUSINESS General We are a global security and aerospace company principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and products. We also provide a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and information services. We serve both domestic and international customers with products and services that have defense, civil, and commercial applications, with our principal customers being agencies of the U.S. Government. In 2011, 82% of our $46.5 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor (including 61% from the Department of Defense (DoD)), 17% were from international customers (including foreign military sales (FMS) funded, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Government), and 1% were from U.S. commercial and other customers. Our main areas of focus are in defense, space, intelligence, homeland security, and information technology, including cyber security. We are operating in an environment that is characterized by both increasing complexity in the global security environment, as well as continuing economic pressures in the U.S. and globally. A significant component of our strategy in this environment is to focus on core program execution, improving the quality and predictability of the delivery of our products and services, and placing more security capability into the hands of our customers at affordable prices. Recognizing that our U.S. Government customers are resource constrained, we are endeavoring to develop and extend our portfolio in a disciplined manner with a focus on international and adjacent markets. Finally, we are focused on cost reduction, through actions such as our workforce reductions in 2011 and programs like our Voluntary Executive Separation Program (VESP) and facility reduction initiatives in 2010, to further enhance the value of our products and services. We were formed in 1995 by combining the businesses of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta Corporation. We are a Maryland corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1877. Our telephone number is (301) 897-6000. Our website home page on the Internet is www.lockheedmartin.com. We make our website content available for information purposes only. It should not be relied upon for investment purposes, nor is it incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. Throughout this Form 10-K, we incorporate by reference information from parts of other documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC allows us to disclose important information by referring to it in this manner, and you should review that information. We make our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and proxy statement for our annual stockholders’ meeting, as well as any amendments to those reports, available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practical after we electronically file the material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. You can learn more about us by reviewing our SEC filings. Our SEC filings can be accessed through the investor relations page of our website, www.lockheedmartin.com/investor. The SEC also maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy statements, and other information regarding SEC registrants, including Lockheed Martin Corporation. Business Segments We have four business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS), and Space Systems. For more information concerning our segment presentation, including comparative segment net sales, operating profit, and related financial information for 2011, 2010, and 2009, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 4 – Information on Business Segments. Aeronautics In 2011, our Aeronautics business segment generated net sales of $14.4 billion, which represented 31% of our total consolidated net sales. Aeronautics’ customers include the military services and various other government agencies of the U.S. and allied countries around the world. In 2011, U.S. Government customers accounted for 75% and international customers accounted for 25% of Aeronautics’ net sales. Sales from Aeronautics’ combat aircraft products and services represented 20% of our total consolidated net sales in each of 2011, 2010, and 2009. No other Aeronautics’ product or service lines generated more than 10% of our total consolidated net sales in 2011, 2010, or 2009. 3


  • Page 12

    Aeronautics is engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, sustainment, support, and upgrade of advanced military aircraft, including combat and air mobility aircraft, unmanned air vehicles, and related technologies. Aeronautics also provides logistics support, sustainment, and upgrade modification services for its aircraft. Aeronautics’ major programs include: • F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter – international multi-role, stealth fighter; • F-16 Fighting Falcon – low-cost, combat-proven, international multi-role fighter; • F-22 Raptor – air dominance and multi-mission stealth fighter; • C-130J Hercules – international tactical airlifter; and • C-5M Super Galaxy – modernization of the C-5 Galaxy, a strategic airlifter. The F-35 program, which is the largest in our corporation and generated 42% of Aeronautics’ net sales in 2011, consists of multiple contracts. Under our customer’s acquisition strategy, the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract will be performed concurrently with the low-rate initial production (LRIP) contracts. Concurrent performance of development and production contracts is advantageous in complex programs to test airplanes, shorten the time to field systems, and achieve overall cost savings. Accordingly, we are performing the SDD contract concurrently with LRIP aircraft lots 2 through 6. We expect the SDD portion of the F-35 program to continue into 2017. In 2011, both LRIP lot 1 aircraft and seven of the 12 LRIP lot 2 aircraft were delivered to the U.S. Government. We received additional funding for LRIP 5 and long lead funding for LRIP 6 in 2011. We now have 93 production aircraft on order. Despite the reduced defense spending levels in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, the F-35 program continues to receive strong support from our customers. The budget supports continuation of all three variants of the F-35 aircraft and still maintains the same ultimate inventory objective of 2,443 aircraft for the U.S. Government as last year, although ramp up of production will be slowed in the near term due to budgetary constraints and to allow for more testing and to minimize design changes impacting production aircraft. International interest in the F-35 continues to grow with two U.S. Government FMS customers to go along with eight partner countries. In 2011, the Israeli government signed a letter of offer and acceptance with the U.S. Government for the procurement of F-35 aircraft, and the Japanese Ministry of Defense selected the F-35 to be its next generation fighter. Israel and Japan are expected to be the first two countries to receive the F-35 aircraft through the FMS process. For additional information on the F-35 program, see “Status of the F-35 Program” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Aeronautics continues to produce F-16 aircraft for foreign governments under the FMS process and through direct foreign government sales. Aeronautics also provides service-life extension and other upgrade programs for our customers’ F-16 aircraft. Production of the F-22 is scheduled to be completed in 2012 with on-going modernization and sustainment activities continuing thereafter. Aeronautics produces and provides support and sustainment services for the C-130J Super Hercules, upgrade and support services for the legacy C-130 Hercules worldwide fleet, support services for the existing C-5A/B/C/M Galaxy fleet, and modernization of Galaxy aircraft to the C-5M Super Galaxy configuration. In addition to the above aircraft programs, Aeronautics is involved in advanced development programs incorporating innovative design and rapid prototype applications. Our Advanced Development Programs (ADP) organization, which includes the Skunk Works, is focused on future systems, including unmanned aerial systems and next generation capabilities for long-range strike, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, situational awareness, and air mobility. We continue to explore technology advancement and insertion in existing aircraft, such as the F-35, F-22, F-16, C-130, U-2, and P-3. We also are involved in numerous network-enabled activities that allow separate systems to work together to increase effectiveness, and continue to invest in new technologies to maintain and enhance competitiveness in military aircraft design and development. Electronic Systems In 2011, our Electronic Systems business segment generated net sales of $14.6 billion, which represented 31% of our total consolidated net sales. Electronic Systems’ customers include the military services and various government agencies of the U.S. and allied countries around the world as well as commercial and other customers. In 2011, U.S. Government customers accounted for 73%, international customers accounted for 26%, and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 1% of Electronic Systems’ net sales. No Electronic Systems’ product or service lines generated more than 10% of our total consolidated net sales in 2011, 2010, or 2009. 4


  • Page 13

    Electronic Systems provides surface ship and submarine combat systems; sea-based missile defense systems; ship systems integration; littoral combat ships; nuclear instrumentation and control systems for naval submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface warships; air and defense missile systems; air-to-ground precision strike weapons systems; tactical missiles; munitions; fire control and navigation systems for rotary and fixed-wing aircraft; manned and unmanned ground vehicles; mission operations support, readiness, engineering support, and integration services; simulation and training services; and energy programs. Electronic Systems’ major programs include: • The Aegis Combat System, which is a fleet defense missile system for the U.S. Navy and international customers and also a sea-based element of the U.S. missile defense system. The Aegis Combat Systems Engineering Agent program, where we are the incumbent contractor, is being recompeted by the U.S. Navy in 2012. • The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) air and missile defense programs. PAC-3 is an advanced defensive missile for the U.S. Army and international customers designed to intercept incoming airborne threats. THAAD is a transportable defensive missile system for the U.S. Government and international customers designed to engage targets both within and outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) recently selected THAAD, which represents the first international sale for this program. • The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), Hellfire, and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) tactical missile programs. MLRS is a highly mobile, automatic system that fires surface-to-surface rockets and missiles from the M270 and High Mobility Artillery Rocket System platforms produced for the U.S. Army and international customers. Hellfire is an air-to-ground missile used for rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, which is produced for the U.S. Army and international customers. JASSM is an air-to-ground missile used for fixed-wing aircraft, which is produced for the U.S. Air Force and international customers. • The Apache Fire Control System, which provides weapons targeting capability for the Apache helicopter for the U.S. Army and a number of international customers. • The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which is a surface combatant for the U.S. Navy designed to operate in shallow waters. Our second LCS vessel, the Fort Worth, successfully completed its builder’s sea trials in November 2011 and is on schedule for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2012. Construction also began on our third LCS vessel, the Milwaukee. • The Special Operations Forces Contractor Logistics Support Services program, which provides logistics support services to the Special Operations Forces of the U.S. Army. Information Systems & Global Solutions In 2011, our IS&GS business segment generated net sales of $9.4 billion, which represented 20% of our total consolidated net sales. IS&GS’ customers include the military services and various government agencies of the U.S. and allied countries around the world as well as commercial and other customers. In 2011, U.S. Government customers accounted for 93%, international customers accounted for 5%, and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 2% of IS&GS’ net sales. No IS&GS’ product or service lines generated more than 10% of our total consolidated net sales in 2011, 2010, or 2009. IS&GS provides management services, information technology solutions, and advanced technology expertise across a broad spectrum of applications. IS&GS supports the needs of customers in human capital planning, data protection and sharing, cyber-security, financial services, health care, energy and environment, security, space exploration, biometrics, and transportation. IS&GS provides network-enabled situation awareness, delivers communications and command and control capability through complex mission solutions for defense applications, and integrates complex global systems to help our customers gather, analyze, and securely distribute critical intelligence data. IS&GS has a portfolio of many smaller contracts as compared to our other business segments. IS&GS’ major programs include: • The Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) contract, a program to increase the integration of the Ballistic Missile Defense System for the U.S. Government. • The En-Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) contract, which is a program to replace the Federal Aviation Administration’s infrastructure with a modern automation environment that includes new functions and capabilities. • The Hanford Mission Support contract, which provides infrastructure and site support services to the Department of Energy. • The National Science Foundation’s U.S. Antarctic Support program, which was awarded in December 2011, manages sites and equipment to enable universities, research institutions, and federal agencies to conduct scientific research in the Antarctic. 5


  • Page 14

    Space Systems In 2011, our Space Systems business segment generated net sales of $8.1 billion, which represented 18% of our total consolidated net sales. Space Systems’ customers include various government agencies of the U.S. and commercial customers. In 2011, U.S. Government customers accounted for 96%, international customers accounted for 2%, and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 2% of Space Systems’ net sales. Sales from Space Systems’ satellite products and services represented 12%, 13%, and 13% of our total consolidated net sales in 2011, 2010, and 2009. No other Space Systems’ product or service lines generated more than 10% of our total consolidated net sales in 2011, 2010, or 2009. Space Systems is engaged in the design, research and development, engineering, and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems, and space transportation systems, including activities related to the planned replacement of the Space Shuttle. Space Systems is responsible for various classified systems and services in support of vital national security systems. Space Systems’ major programs include: • The Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile, which is a program with the U.S. Navy for the only current submarine- launched intercontinental ballistic missile in production in the U.S. • The Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program, which provides the U.S. Air Force with enhanced worldwide missile launch detection and tracking capabilities. • The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion) program, an advanced crew capsule design for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) utilizing state-of-the-art technology for human exploration beyond low earth orbit that replaces the Space Shuttle. • The Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, which is the next generation of highly secure communications satellites for the U.S. Air Force. • The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS), which is a next-generation narrow band satellite communication system for the U.S. Navy. • Global Positioning System (GPS) III, which is a program to modernize the GPS satellite system for the U.S. Air Force. Space Systems has an ownership interest in United Launch Alliance, which provides expendable launch services for the U.S. Government, and in United Space Alliance, which provides processing activities for the Space Shuttle program, which is winding down following the completion of the last mission in 2011. Competition Our broad portfolio of products and services competes against the products and services of other large aerospace, defense, and information technology companies, as well as numerous smaller competitors, particularly in the IS&GS segment. We often form teams with other companies that are competitors in other areas to provide customers with the best mix of capabilities to address specific requirements. In some areas of our business, customer requirements are changing to encourage expanded competition, such as information technology contracts where there may be a wide range of small to large contractors bidding on procurements. Principal factors of competition include: value of our products and services to the customer; technical and management capability; the ability to develop and implement complex, integrated system architectures; financing and total cost of ownership; release of technology; our demonstrated ability to execute and perform against contract requirements; and our ability to provide timely solutions. The competition for foreign sales is subject to additional U.S. Government stipulations (e.g., export restrictions, market access, technology transfer, industrial cooperation, and contracting practices). We may compete against domestic and foreign companies (or teams) for contract awards by foreign governments. International competitions also may be subject to different laws or contracting practices of foreign governments that may impact how we structure our bid for the procurement. In many international procurements, the purchasing government’s relationship with the U.S. and its industrial cooperation programs are also important factors in determining the outcome of a competition. It is common for international customers to require contractors to comply with their industrial cooperation regulations, sometimes referred to as offset requirements, and we have undertaken foreign offset agreements as part of securing some international business. For more information concerning offset agreements, see “Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. 6


  • Page 15

    Patents We routinely apply for and own a substantial number of U.S. and foreign patents related to the products and services we provide. In addition to owning a large portfolio of intellectual property, we also license intellectual property to and from third parties. The U.S. Government has licenses in our patents that are developed in performance of government contracts, and it may use or authorize others to use the inventions covered by our patents for government purposes. Unpatented research, development, and engineering skills also make an important contribution to our business. Although our intellectual property rights in the aggregate are important to the operation of our business, we do not believe that any existing patent, license, or other intellectual property right is of such importance that its loss or termination would have a material adverse effect on our business taken as a whole. Raw Materials and Seasonality Aspects of our business require relatively scarce raw materials. Historically, we have been successful in obtaining the raw materials and other supplies needed in our manufacturing processes. We seek to manage raw materials supply risk through long-term contracts and by maintaining a stock of key materials in inventory. Aluminum and titanium are important raw materials used in certain of our Aeronautics and Space Systems programs. Long-term agreements have helped enable a continued supply of aluminum and titanium. Carbon fiber is an important ingredient in the composite material that is used in our Aeronautics programs, such as the F-35 aircraft. Aluminum lithium, which we use for F-16 aircraft structural components, is currently only available from limited sources. We have been advised by some suppliers that pricing and the timing of availability of materials in some commodities markets can fluctuate widely. These fluctuations may negatively affect price and the availability of certain materials. While we do not anticipate material problems regarding the supply of our raw materials and believe that we have taken appropriate measures to mitigate these variations, if key materials become unavailable or if pricing fluctuates widely in the future, it could result in delay of one or more of our programs, increased costs, or reduced profits. No material portion of our business is considered to be seasonal. Various factors can affect the distribution of our sales between accounting periods, including the timing of government awards, the availability of government funding, product deliveries, and customer acceptance. Government Contracts and Regulation Our business is heavily regulated. We deal with numerous U.S. Government agencies and entities, including all branches of the U.S. military, the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Energy, the U.S. Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Similar government authorities exist in other countries and regulate our international efforts. We must comply with and are affected by laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration, and performance of U.S. Government and other contracts. These laws and regulations, among other things: • require certification and disclosure of all cost or pricing data in connection with certain contract negotiations; • impose specific and unique cost accounting practices that may differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and therefore require reconciliation; • impose acquisition regulations that define allowable and unallowable costs and otherwise govern our right to reimbursement under certain cost-based U.S. Government contracts; • restrict the use and dissemination of information classified for national security purposes and the export of certain products and technical data; and • require the use of earned valued management systems (EVMS) for managing cost and schedule performance on certain complex programs. For additional discussion of government contracting laws and regulations, see “Risk Factors” and “Industry Considerations” and “Critical Accounting Policies” regarding contract types in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. A portion of our business is classified by the U.S. Government and cannot be specifically described. The operating results of these classified programs are included in our consolidated financial statements. The business risks associated with classified programs historically have not differed materially from those of our other government programs. The internal controls addressing the financial reporting of classified programs are consistent with the internal control practices for non-classified contracts. 7


  • Page 16

    Backlog At December 31, 2011, our total backlog was $80.7 billion compared with $78.4 billion at December 31, 2010. Backlog is converted into sales in future periods as work is performed or deliveries are made. Approximately $31.0 billion, or 38%, of our total 2011 year-end backlog is expected to be converted into sales in 2012. Our backlog includes both funded (unfilled firm orders for our products and services for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer – Congress, in the case of U.S. Government agencies) and unfunded (firm orders for which funding has not been appropriated) amounts. We do not include unexercised options or potential indefinite- delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) orders in our backlog. If any of our contracts were to be terminated, our backlog would be reduced by the expected value of the remaining terms of such contracts. Funded backlog was $55.1 billion at December 31, 2011 as compared to $56.6 billion at December 31, 2010. The backlog for each of our business segments is provided as part of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – “Discussion of Business Segments.” Research and Development We conduct research and development activities under customer-funded contracts and with our own independent research and development funds. Our independent research and development costs include basic research, applied research, development, systems, and other concept formulation studies. These costs generally are allocated among all contracts and programs in progress under U.S. Government contractual arrangements. Corporation-sponsored product development costs not otherwise allocable are charged to expense when incurred. Costs we incur under customer-sponsored research and development programs pursuant to contracts are included in net sales and cost of sales. Under certain arrangements in which a customer shares in product development costs, our portion of the unreimbursed costs is expensed as incurred. Independent research and development costs charged to costs of sales were $585 million in 2011, $639 million in 2010, and $717 million in 2009. The downward trend reflects the transition of programs from development to production and the realignment of our costs to adjust to our customers’ budgetary constraints. See “Research and development and similar costs” in Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies. Employees At December 31, 2011, we had approximately 123,000 employees, over 95% of whom were located in the U.S. We have a continuing need for numerous skilled and professional personnel to meet contract schedules and obtain new and ongoing orders for our products. The majority of our employees possess a security clearance. The demand for workers with security clearances who have specialized engineering, information technology, and technical skills within the aerospace, defense, and information technology industries is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future, while growth of the pool of trained individuals with those skills has not matched demand. As a result, we are competing with other companies with similar needs in hiring skilled employees in areas of need. Approximately 15% of our employees are covered by any one of approximately 70 separate collective bargaining agreements with various unions. A number of our existing collective bargaining agreements expire in any given year. Historically, we have been successful in renegotiating expiring agreements without any material disruption of operating activities. Management considers employee relations to be good. Forward-Looking Statements This Form 10-K contains statements that, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute forward- looking statements within the meaning of federal securities law. The words believe, estimate, anticipate, project, intend, expect, plan, outlook, scheduled, forecast, and similar expressions are intended to help identify forward-looking statements. Statements and assumptions with respect to future sales, income and cash flows, program performance, the outcome of litigation, environmental remediation cost estimates, and planned acquisitions or dispositions of assets are examples of forward-looking statements. Numerous factors, including potentially the risk factors described in the following section, could affect our forward-looking statements and actual performance. ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS An investment in our common stock or debt securities involves risks and uncertainties. We seek to identify, manage, and mitigate risks to our business, but risk and uncertainty cannot be eliminated or necessarily predicted. You should consider the following factors carefully, in addition to the other information contained in this Form 10-K, before deciding to purchase our securities. 8


  • Page 17

    We depend heavily on U.S. Government contracts. A decline or reprioritization of funding in the U.S. defense budget or delays in the budget process could adversely affect our ability to grow or maintain our sales, earnings, and cash flow. We derived 82% of our sales from U.S. Government customers in 2011, including 61% from the DoD. We expect to continue to derive most of our sales from work performed under U.S. Government contracts. Those contracts are conditioned upon the continuing availability of Congressional appropriations. Congress usually appropriates funds on a fiscal-year basis even though contract performance may extend over many years. The programs in which we participate must compete with other programs and policy imperatives for consideration during the budget and appropriation process. Concerns about increased deficit spending, along with continued economic challenges, continue to place pressure on U.S. and international customer budgets. While we believe that our programs are well aligned with national defense and other priorities, shifts in domestic and international spending and tax policy, changes in security, defense, and intelligence priorities, the affordability of our products and services, general economic conditions and developments, and other factors may affect a decision to fund or the level of funding for existing or proposed programs. During 2011, the U.S. Government was unable to reach agreement on budget reduction measures required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Budget Act) passed by Congress. Unless Congress and the Administration take further action, the Budget Act will trigger automatic reductions in both defense and discretionary spending in January 2013. While the impact of sequestration is yet to be determined, automatic across-the-board cuts would approximately double the $487 billion top-line reduction already reflected in the defense funding over a ten-year period, with a $52 billion reduction occurring in the government’s fiscal year 2013. The resulting automatic across-the-board budget cuts in sequestration would have significant consequences to our business and industry. There would be disruption of ongoing programs and initiatives, facilities closures and personnel reductions that would severely impact advanced manufacturing operations and engineering expertise, and accelerate the loss of skills and knowledge, directly undermining a key provision of the new security strategy, which is to preserve the industrial base. In December 2011, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations act for fiscal 2012 to finance all U.S. Government activities through September 30, 2012, the end of its fiscal year. This full year method of financing eliminated much of the uncertainty and inefficiency in procurement of products and services that characterized the government’s first quarter of fiscal year 2012 when the operations of the federal government were financed through a series of continuing resolution temporary funding measures. Under such conditions, large or complex programs are potentially subject to increased scrutiny, particularly those programs that have experienced performance challenges. Our largest program, the F-35, represented 13% of our consolidated sales in 2011, and is expected to represent a higher percentage of our sales in future years. For additional information regarding the F-35 program, see “Status of the F-35 Program” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. We offer a diverse range of defense, homeland security, and information technology products and services. We believe that this makes it less likely that cuts in any specific contract or program will have a long-term effect on our business; however, termination of multiple or large programs or contracts could adversely affect our business and future financial performance. We could incur expenses beyond those that would be reimbursed if one or more of our existing contracts were terminated for convenience due to lack of funding or other reasons. Potential changes in funding priorities may afford new or additional opportunities for our businesses in terms of existing, follow-on, or replacement programs. While we would expect to compete, and be well positioned as the incumbent on existing programs, we may not be successful, or the replacement programs may be funded at lower levels. In years when the U.S. Government does not complete its budget process before the end of its fiscal year (September 30), government operations typically are funded through a continuing resolution that authorizes agencies of the U.S. Government to continue to operate, but does not authorize new spending initiatives. When the U.S. Government operates under a continuing resolution, delays can occur in the procurement of products and services. Historically, this has not had a material effect on our business; however, should a continuing resolution be prolonged further or extended through the entire government fiscal year, it may cause procurement awards to shift and cause our revenues to vary between periods. During periods covered by continuing resolutions (or until the regular appropriation bills are passed), we may experience delays in procurement of products and services due to lack of funding; and those delays may affect our results of operations. At times, we may continue to work without funding, and use our funds, in order to meet our customer’s desired delivery dates for products or services. It is uncertain at this time which of our programs’ funding could be reduced in future years or whether new legislation will be passed by Congress in the next fiscal year that could result in additional or alternative funding cuts. 9


  • Page 18

    We are subject to a number of procurement rules and regulations. Our business and our reputation could be adversely affected if we fail to comply with those rules. We must comply with and are affected by laws and regulations relating to the award, administration, and performance of U.S. Government contracts. Government contract laws and regulations affect how we do business with our customers and, in some instances, impose added costs on our business. A violation of specific laws and regulations could harm our reputation and result in the imposition of fines and penalties, the termination of our contracts, or debarment from bidding on contracts. In some instances, these laws and regulations impose terms or rights that are more favorable to the government than those typically available to commercial parties in negotiated transactions. For example, the U.S. Government may terminate any of our government contracts and subcontracts either at its convenience or for default based on performance. Upon termination for convenience of a fixed-price type contract, we normally are entitled to receive the purchase price for delivered items, reimbursement for allowable costs for work-in-process, and an allowance for profit on the contract or adjustment for loss if completion of performance would have resulted in a loss. Upon termination for convenience of a cost- reimbursable contract, we normally are entitled to reimbursement of allowable costs plus a portion of the fee. Allowable costs would include our cost to terminate agreements with our suppliers and subcontractors. The amount of the fee recovered, if any, is related to the portion of the work accomplished prior to termination and is determined by negotiation. We attempt to ensure that adequate funds are available by notifying the customer when its estimated costs, including those associated with a possible termination for convenience, approach levels specified as being allotted to its programs. As funds are typically appropriated on a fiscal-year basis and as the costs of a termination for convenience may exceed the costs of continuing a program in a given fiscal year, occasionally on-going programs do not have sufficient funds appropriated to cover the termination costs were the government to terminate them for convenience. Under such circumstances, the U.S. Government could assert that it is not required to appropriate additional funding. A termination arising out of our default may expose us to liability and have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. In addition, on those contracts for which we are teamed with others and are not the prime contractor, the U.S. Government could terminate a prime contract under which we are a subcontractor, notwithstanding the quality of our services as a subcontractor. In addition, our U.S. Government contracts typically span one or more base years and multiple option years. The U.S. Government generally has the right not to exercise option periods and may not exercise an option period for various reasons. In addition, the use of progress payment provisions on fixed price contracts may delay our ability to recover costs incurred and affect the timing of our cash flows. U.S. Government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and various agency Inspectors General, routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, cost structure, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards. The U.S. Government also audits the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its systems and policies, including the contractor’s business systems, purchasing, property, estimating, EVMS, compensation, accounting, budgeting, billing, labor, and information systems. For discussion of the EVMS at our Fort Worth location, see “Status of the F-35 Program” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Any costs found to be misclassified may be subject to repayment. Inadequacies identified during government audits of EVMS, purchasing, billing, and labor systems also may result in withholds on billed receivables, which could potentially impact the timing of our cash flows. The withholds are imposed if the system inadequacy causes damages to the U.S Government. If an audit or investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines, and suspension or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. Government. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us. Similar government oversight exists in most other countries where we conduct business. Increased competition and bid protests in a budget-constrained environment may make it more difficult to maintain our financial performance. As a leader in defense and global security, we have a large number of programs for which we are the incumbent contractor. A substantial portion of our business is awarded through competitive bidding. The U.S. Government increasingly has relied upon competitive contract award types, including IDIQ, GSA Schedule, and other multi-award contracts, which has the potential to create pricing pressure and increase our cost by requiring that we submit multiple bids and proposals. The 10


  • Page 19

    competitive bidding process entails substantial costs and managerial time to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that may not be awarded to us or may be split among competitors. Following award, we may encounter significant expenses, delays, contract modifications, or even loss of the contract if our competitors protest or challenge contracts that are awarded to us. Multi-award contracts require that we make sustained efforts to obtain task orders under the contract. We are facing increased competition, particularly in information technology and cyber security, from non-traditional competitors outside of the aerospace and defense industry. At the same time, our customers are facing budget constraints, trying to do more with less by cutting costs, identifying more affordable solutions, and reducing product development cycles. To remain competitive, we consistently must provide superior performance, advanced technology solutions, and service at an affordable cost and with the agility that our customers require to satisfy their mission objectives. International sales may pose different risks. In 2011, our sales to international customers (including foreign military sales funded, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Government) were 17% of net sales. As a company, we have a goal to grow international sales over the next several years. Our international business may pose risks that are different, and potentially greater, than those encountered in our domestic business due to the potential for greater volatility in foreign economic and political environments. International procurement rules and regulations, contract laws and regulations, and contractual terms are different from those in the U.S., and may be interpreted differently by foreign courts. Our international business is highly sensitive to changes in foreign national priorities and government budgets, and may be further affected by global economic conditions and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Sales of military products are affected by defense budgets (both in the U.S. and abroad) and U.S. foreign policy. In 2011, the European Commission took actions to stem the debt crisis in a number of member countries of the European Union and to stabilize the economies of these countries. The governments of a number of European countries have proposed austerity measures to their budgets as a condition for continued economic support from other European Union countries (as well as the Europe Central Bank) which could further constrain their defense budgets and fiscal priorities in current and future periods. Given the ongoing negotiations of the European Commission and its member nations, the effect of these austerity measures on our international sales is uncertain. Sales of our products and services internationally are subject to U.S. and local government regulations and procurement policies and practices including regulations relating to import-export control. Violations of export control rules could result in suspension of our ability to export items from one or more business units or the entire Corporation. Depending on the scope of the suspension, this could have a material effect on our ability to perform certain international contracts. There also are U.S. and international regulations relating to investments, exchange controls, taxation, and repatriation of earnings, as well as currency, political, and economic risks. We also frequently team with international subcontractors and suppliers who are exposed to similar risks. In international sales, we face substantial competition from both domestic manufacturers and foreign manufacturers whose governments sometimes provide research and development assistance, marketing subsidies, and other assistance for their products. Some international customers require contractors to comply with industrial cooperation regulations and enter into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements. Offset agreements may require in-country purchases, manufacturing, and financial support projects as a condition to obtaining orders or other arrangements. Offset agreements generally extend over several years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. See “Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Our business involves significant risks and uncertainties that may not be covered by indemnity or insurance. A significant portion of our business relates to designing, developing, and manufacturing advanced defense and technology systems and products. New technologies may be untested or unproven. Failure of some of these products and services could result in extensive loss of life or property damage. Accordingly, we also may incur liabilities that are unique to our products and services, including combat and air mobility aircraft, missile and space systems, command and control systems, air traffic control management systems, cyber security, homeland security, and training programs. In some, but not all circumstances, we may be entitled to certain legal protections or indemnifications from our customers, either through U.S. Government indemnifications under Public Law 85-804, qualification of our products and services by the Department of Homeland Security under the SAFETY Act provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, contractual provisions, or 11


  • Page 20

    otherwise. The amount of insurance coverage that we maintain may not be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities, and it is not possible to obtain insurance to protect against all operational risks and liabilities. Substantial claims resulting from an accident, failure of our products or services, or other incident, or liability arising from our products and services in excess of any indemnity and our insurance coverage (or for which indemnity or insurance is not available or not obtained) could adversely impact our financial condition, cash flows, or operating results. Any accident, even if fully indemnified or insured, could negatively affect our reputation among our customers and the public, and make it more difficult for us to compete effectively. It also could affect the cost and availability of adequate insurance in the future. Our earnings and margins may vary based on the mix of our contracts and programs, our performance, and our ability to control costs. Our earnings and margins may vary materially depending on the types of long-term government contracts undertaken, the nature of the products produced or services performed under those contracts, the costs incurred in performing the work, the achievement of other performance objectives, and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees is finally determined (particularly under award and incentive fee contracts). Changes in procurement policy favoring new, accelerated, or more incentive-based fee arrangements or different award fee criteria or government proposals that indicate what our costs should be may affect the predictability of our profit rates. Our customers are under pressure that may result in a change in contract types earlier in program maturity or pursuit of non-traditional contract provisions in negotiation of contracts. Our backlog includes a variety of contract types which are intended to address changing risk and reward profiles as a program matures. Contract types include cost-reimbursable, fixed-price incentive, fixed-price, and time-and-materials contracts. Contracts for development programs with complex design and technical challenges are typically cost-reimbursable. Under cost-reimbursable contracts, we are reimbursed for allowable costs and paid a fee, which may be fixed or performance-based. In these cases, the associated financial risks primarily relate to a reduction in fees, and the program could be cancelled if cost, schedule, or technical performance issues arise. Other contracts in backlog are for the transition from development to production (e.g., Low Rate Initial Production), which includes the challenge of starting and stabilizing a manufacturing production and test line while the final design is being validated. These generally are cost-reimbursable or fixed-price incentive contracts, although there is a current stated U.S. Government preference for fixed-price incentive contracts. Under a fixed-price incentive contract, the allowable costs incurred are eligible for reimbursement, but are subject to a cost-share limit which affects profitability. Changes resulting from the ongoing development phase may need to be implemented on the production contracts, a concept referred to as concurrency. The risks associated with estimating and recovering the potential cost of concurrency changes on LRIP contracts may affect our earnings and cash flows. If our costs exceed the contract target cost or are not allowable under the applicable regulations, we may not be able to obtain reimbursement for all costs and may have our fees reduced or eliminated. There are also contracts for production as well as operations and maintenance of the delivered products that have the challenge of achieving a stable production and delivery rate, while maintaining operability of the product after delivery. These contracts are mainly fixed-price, although some operations and maintenance contracts are time and materials-type. Under fixed-price contracts, we receive a fixed price despite the actual costs we incur. We have to absorb any costs in excess of the fixed price. Under time-and-materials contracts, we are paid for labor at negotiated hourly billing rates and for certain expenses. The failure to perform to customer expectations and contract requirements may result in reduced fees and affect our financial performance in that period. Under each type of contract, if we are unable to control costs, our operating results could be adversely affected, particularly if we are unable to justify an increase in contract value to our customers. Cost overruns or the failure to perform on existing programs also may adversely affect our ability to retain existing programs and win future contract awards. If our subcontractors, suppliers, or teaming agreement or joint venture partners fail to perform their obligations, our performance and our ability to win future business could be harmed. Many of our contracts involve subcontracts or teaming arrangements with other companies upon which we rely to perform a portion of the services that we must provide to our customers. We also sometimes bid on contracts through joint ventures that award work through these entities, rather than through subcontract or teaming arrangements. There is a risk that 12


  • Page 21

    we may have disputes with our subcontractors, teammates, or venture members, including disputes regarding the quality and timeliness of work performed, the workshare provided to that party, customer concerns about the other party’s performance, our failure to extend existing task orders or issue new task orders, or our hiring of the personnel of a subcontractor, teammate, or venture member, or vice versa. In addition, the contracting parties on which we rely may be affected by changes in the economic environment and constraints on available financing to meet their performance requirements or provide needed supplies on a timely basis. A failure by one or more of those contracting parties to provide the agreed-upon supplies or perform the agreed-upon services on a timely basis may affect our ability to perform our obligations. Contracting party performance deficiencies may affect our operating results and could result in a customer terminating our contract for default. A default termination could expose us to liability and affect our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. The funding and costs associated with our pension and postretirement medical plans may cause our earnings, cash flows from operations, and stockholders’ equity to fluctuate significantly from year to year. Many of our employees are covered by defined benefit pension plans, and we provide certain health care and life insurance benefits to eligible retirees. The impact of these plans on our GAAP earnings may be volatile in that the amount of expense we record for our postretirement benefit plans may materially change from year to year because those calculations are sensitive to changes in several key economic assumptions, including interest rates, rates of return on plan assets, and workforce demographics. Changes in these factors affect our plan funding, cash flow, earnings, and stockholders’ equity. With regard to cash flow, in the past few years we have made substantial cash contributions to our plans following ERISA and in 2011, Pension Protection Act (PPA) requirements. We generally are able to recover these costs related to our plans as allowable costs on our U.S. Government contracts, including FMS, but there are delays between when we contribute cash to the plans under pension funding rules and recover it under government cost accounting rules. In December 2011, the cost accounting rules were revised to harmonize the measurement and period assignment of the pension cost allocable to government contracts with the PPA, which will reduce this delay starting in 2013 (CAS Harmonization). The cost impact of CAS Harmonization will be phased in beginning in 2013 with the goal of better aligning the CAS cost and ERISA funding requirements being fully achieved in 2017. In recent years, we have taken certain actions to mitigate the effect of our defined benefit pension plans on our financial results, including no longer offering a defined benefit pension plan to new, non-represented employees starting in 2006, and making substantial cash contributions to the existing plans to improve their funded status. In 2011, we contributed $2.3 billion to our defined benefit pension plans. For more information on how these factors could impact earnings, financial position, cash flow and stockholders’ equity, see “Critical Accounting Policies – Postretirement Benefit Plans” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations and Note 10 – Postretirement Benefits. If we fail to manage acquisitions, divestitures, and other transactions successfully, our financial results, business, and future prospects could be harmed. In pursuing our business strategy, we routinely conduct discussions, evaluate targets, and enter into agreements regarding possible acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, and equity investments. We seek to identify acquisition or investment opportunities that will expand or complement our existing products and services, or customer base, at attractive valuations. We often compete with others for the same opportunities. To be successful, we must conduct due diligence to identify valuation issues and potential loss contingencies, negotiate transaction terms, complete and close complex transactions, and manage post-closing matters (e.g., integrate acquired companies and employees, realize anticipated operating synergies, and improve margins) efficiently and effectively. Acquisition, divestiture, joint venture, and investment transactions often require substantial management resources and have the potential to divert our attention from our existing business. Unidentified pre-closing liabilities could affect our future financial results. Joint ventures or equity investments operate under shared control with other parties. Under the equity method of accounting for nonconsolidated joint ventures and investments, we recognize our share of the operating results of these ventures in our results of operations. Our operating results may be affected by the performance of businesses over which we do not exercise control. The most significant impact of our equity investments is in our Space Systems business segment where approximately 25% of its 2011 operating profit was derived from its equity investments in two joint ventures (see “Space Systems” above). Management closely monitors the results of operations and cash flows generated by these investees. 13


  • Page 22

    Our business could be negatively affected by cyber or other security threats or other disruptions. As a U.S. defense contractor, we face cyber threats, threats to the physical security of our facilities and employees, and terrorist acts, as well as the potential for business disruptions associated with information technology failures, natural disasters, or public health crises. We routinely experience cyber security threats, threats to our information technology infrastructure and attempts to gain access to our company sensitive information, as do our customers, suppliers, subcontractors and joint venture partners. We may experience similar security threats at customer sites that we operate and manage as a contractual requirement. Prior cyber attacks directed at us have not had a material impact on our financial results, and we believe our threat detection and mitigation processes and procedures are robust. Due to the evolving nature of these security threats, however, the impact of any future incident cannot be predicted. Although we work cooperatively with our customers and our suppliers, subcontractors, and joint venture partners to seek to minimize the impacts of cyber threats, other security threats or business disruptions, we must rely on the safeguards put in place by those entities. The costs related to cyber or other security threats or disruptions may not be fully insured or indemnified by other means. Occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect our internal operations, the services we provide to customers, loss of competitive advantages derived from our research and development efforts, early obsolescence of our products and services, our future financial results, our reputation or our stock price. Unforeseen environmental costs could affect our future earnings as well as the affordability of our products and services. Our operations are subject to and affected by a variety of federal, state, local, and foreign environmental protection laws and regulations. We are involved in environmental responses at some of our facilities and former facilities, and at third-party sites not owned by us where we have been designated a potentially responsible party by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or by a state agency. In addition, we could be affected by future regulations imposed in response to concerns over climate change, other aspects of the environment, or natural resources, and by other actions commonly referred to as “green initiatives.” We have an ongoing comprehensive program to reduce the effects of our operations on the environment. We manage various government-owned facilities on behalf of the government. At such facilities, environmental compliance and remediation costs historically have been the responsibility of the government, and we have relied (and continue to rely with respect to past practices) upon government funding to pay such costs. Although the government remains responsible for capital and operating costs associated with environmental compliance, responsibility for fines and penalties associated with environmental noncompliance typically are borne by either the government or the contractor, depending on the contract and the relevant facts. Some environmental laws include criminal provisions. An environmental law conviction could affect our ability to be awarded future, or perform existing, U.S. Government contracts. We have incurred and will continue to incur liabilities under various federal, state, local, and foreign statutes for environmental protection and remediation. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. Among the variables management must assess in evaluating costs associated with these cases and remediation sites generally are the status of site assessment, extent of the contamination, impacts on natural resources, changing cost estimates, evolution of technologies used to remediate the site, and continually evolving governmental environmental standards and cost allowability issues. Both the EPA and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced plans in January 2011 to regulate two chemicals, perchlorate and hexavalent chromium, to levels in drinking water that are expected to be substantially lower than the existing public health goals or standards established in California. The rulemaking process is a lengthy one that takes one or more years to complete. If a substantially lower standard is adopted, we would expect a material increase in our cost estimates for remediation at several existing sites. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or cleanup to the extent probable and estimable, see “Critical Accounting Policies—Environmental Matters” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 13—Legal Proceedings, Commitments, and Contingencies. 14


  • Page 23

    We are involved in a number of legal proceedings. We cannot predict the outcome of litigation and other contingencies with certainty. Our business may be adversely affected by the outcome of legal proceedings and other contingencies that cannot be predicted with certainty. As required by GAAP, we estimate material loss contingencies and establish reserves based on our assessment of contingencies where liability is deemed probable and reasonably estimable in light of the facts and circumstances known to us at a particular point in time. Subsequent developments in legal proceedings may affect our assessment and estimates of the loss contingency recorded as a liability or as a reserve against assets in our financial statements. For a description of our current legal proceedings, see Item 3 – Legal Proceedings and Note 13 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments, and Contingencies. In order to be successful, we must attract and retain key employees. Our business has a continuing need to attract large numbers of skilled personnel, including personnel holding security clearances, to support the growth of the enterprise and to replace individuals who have terminated employment due to retirement or other reasons. To the extent that the demand for qualified personnel exceeds supply, we could experience higher labor, recruiting, or training costs in order to attract and retain such employees, or could experience difficulties in performing under our contracts if our needs for such employees were unmet. We increasingly compete with commercial technology companies outside of the aerospace and defense industry for qualified technical and scientific positions as the number of qualified domestic engineers is decreasing. To the extent that these companies grow faster than our industry, or face fewer cost and product pricing constraints, they may be able to offer higher compensation to job candidates or our existing employees. To the extent that we lose experienced personnel through wage competition, normal attrition, or specific actions, we must successfully manage the transfer of critical knowledge from those individuals. We also must manage leadership development and succession planning throughout our business. To the extent that we are unable to attract, develop, retain, and protect leadership talent successfully, we could experience business disruptions and impair our ability to achieve business objectives. Historically, where employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with various unions, we have been successful in negotiating renewals to expiring agreements without any material disruption of operating activities. This does not assure, however, that we will be successful in our efforts to negotiate renewals of our existing collective bargaining agreements when they expire. If we were unsuccessful in those efforts, there is the potential that we could incur unanticipated delays or expenses in the programs affected by any resulting work stoppages. Our estimates, forward-looking statements, and projections may prove to be inaccurate. The accounting for some of our most significant activities is based on judgments and estimates, which are complex and subject to many variables. For example, accounting for sales using the percentage-of-completion method requires that we assess risks and make assumptions regarding schedule, cost, technical, and performance issues for each of our thousands of contracts, many of which are long-term in nature. Another example is the goodwill assets recorded on our balance sheet, which represent greater than 25% of our total assets, and are subject to annual impairment testing. If we experience changes or factors arise that negatively affect the expected cash flows of a reporting unit, we may be required to write off all or a portion of the related goodwill. Changes in U.S. or foreign tax laws, including possibly with retroactive effect, and audits by tax authorities could result in unanticipated increases in our tax expense and affect profitability and cash flows. For example, if the corporate tax rate was lowered, our deferred tax assets would be reduced with a corresponding material, one-time increase to income tax expense; however, income tax expense and payments would be reduced in subsequent years. Actual financial results could differ from our judgments and estimates. Refer to “Critical Accounting Policies” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies for a complete discussion of our significant accounting policies and use of estimates. Our future financial results likely will be different from those projected due to the inherent nature of projections, and may be better or worse than expected. Given these uncertainties, you should not rely on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K. We expressly disclaim a duty to provide updates to forward-looking statements after the date of this Form 10-K to reflect the occurrence of subsequent events, changed circumstances, changes in our expectations, or the estimates and assumptions associated with them. The forward-looking statements in this Form 10-K are intended to be subject to the safe harbor protection provided by the federal securities laws. 15


  • Page 24

    ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS None. ITEM 2. PROPERTIES At December 31, 2011, we operated in 573 locations (including offices, manufacturing plants, warehouses, service centers, laboratories, and other facilities) throughout the U.S. and internationally. Of these, we owned 45 locations aggregating approximately 29 million square feet, and leased space at 528 locations aggregating approximately 25 million square feet. We also manage or occupy various government-owned facilities under leases and various other arrangements. The U.S. Government also furnishes equipment that we use in some of our businesses. At December 31, 2011, our business segments occupied facilities at the following major locations that housed in excess of 500,000 square feet of floor space: • Aeronautics – Palmdale, California; Marietta, Georgia; Greenville, South Carolina; and Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas. • Electronic Systems – Camden, Arkansas; Orlando, Florida; Lexington, Kentucky; Baltimore, Maryland; Moorestown and Mt. Laurel, New Jersey; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Owego and Syracuse, New York; Akron, Ohio; Grand Prairie, Texas; and Manassas, Virginia. • Information Systems & Global Solutions – Goodyear, Arizona; San Jose and Sunnyvale, California; Colorado Springs and Denver, Colorado; Gaithersburg and Rockville, Maryland and other locations within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; Valley Forge, Pennsylvania; and Houston, Texas. • Space Systems – Sunnyvale, California; Denver, Colorado; and Newtown, Pennsylvania. • Corporate activities – Lakeland, Florida and Bethesda, Maryland. The following is a summary of our floor space by business segment at December 31, 2011: Government- (Square feet in millions) Owned Leased Owned Total Aeronautics 5.2 3.6 15.2 24.0 Electronic Systems 9.7 11.9 8.6 30.2 Information Systems & Global Solutions 2.5 7.1 — 9.6 Space Systems 8.6 1.8 .9 11.3 Corporate activities 3.0 .8 — 3.8 Total 29.0 25.2 24.7 78.9 Some of our owned properties, primarily classified under corporate activities, are leased to third parties. In the area of manufacturing, most of the operations are of a job-order nature, rather than an assembly line process, and productive equipment has multiple uses for multiple products. Management believes that all of our major physical facilities are in good condition and are adequate for their intended use. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular quarter. We cannot predict the outcome of legal proceedings with certainty. These matters include the proceedings summarized in Note 13 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments, and Contingencies. From time-to-time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. U.S. Government investigations of us, whether relating to government contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines, or penalties being imposed upon us, or could lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracting. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against us. 16


  • Page 25

    We are subject to federal and state requirements for protection of the environment, including those for discharge of hazardous materials and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, we are a party to or have our property subject to various lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental protection matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in us being involved with related legal proceedings, claims, and remediation obligations. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or clean-up to the extent estimable, see “Critical Accounting Policies – Environmental Matters” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Note 13 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments, and Contingencies. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES Not applicable. ITEM 4(a). EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT Our executive officers are listed below, as well as information concerning their age at December 31, 2011, positions and offices held with the Corporation, and principal occupation and business experience over the past five years. There were no family relationships among any of our executive officers and directors. All officers serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. Linda R. Gooden (58), Executive Vice President – Information Systems & Global Solutions Ms. Gooden has served as Executive Vice President – Information Systems & Global Solutions since January 2007. She previously served as Deputy Executive Vice President – Information & Technology Services from October 2006 to December 2006, and President, Lockheed Martin Information Technology from September 1997 to December 2006. Christopher J. Gregoire (43), Vice President and Controller (Chief Accounting Officer) Mr. Gregoire has served as Vice President and Controller (Chief Accounting Officer) since March 2010. He previously was employed by Sprint Nextel Corporation from August 2006 to May 2009, most recently as Principal Accounting Officer and Assistant Controller, and was a partner at Deloitte & Touche LLP from September 2003 to July 2006. Ralph D. Heath (63), Executive Vice President – Aeronautics Mr. Heath has served as Executive Vice President – Aeronautics since January 2005. Effective April 1, 2012, Mr. Heath will step down as Executive Vice President – Aeronautics, but will remain an Executive Vice President of the Corporation through May 1, 2012 when he will retire. Larry A. Lawson, Vice President and General Manager, F-35 Program, will succeed Mr. Heath as the new Executive Vice President – Aeronautics effective April 1, 2012. Marillyn A. Hewson (58), Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems Ms. Hewson has served as Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems since January 2010. She previously served as President, Systems Integration – Owego from September 2008 to December 2009; Executive Vice President – Global Sustainment for Aeronautics from February 2007 to August 2008; President, Lockheed Martin Logistics Services Company from January 2007 to February 2007; and President and General Manager, Kelly Aviation Center, L.P. from August 2004 to December 2007. Christopher E. Kubasik (50), President and Chief Operating Officer Mr. Kubasik has served as President and Chief Operating Officer since January 2010. He previously served as Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems from September 2007 to December 2009, and as Chief Financial Officer from February 2001 to August 2007. Maryanne R. Lavan (52), Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary Ms. Lavan has served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel since June 2010 and Corporate Secretary since September 2010. She previously served as Vice President – Internal Audit from February 2007 to June 2010, and Vice President – Ethics and Business Conduct from October 2003 to February 2007. 17


  • Page 26

    Joanne M. Maguire (57), Executive Vice President – Space Systems Ms. Maguire has served as Executive Vice President – Space Systems since July 2006. She previously served as Vice President and Deputy of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company from July 2003 to June 2006. Kenneth R. Possenriede (51), Vice President and Treasurer Mr. Possenriede has served as Vice President and Treasurer since July 2011. He previously served as Vice President of Finance and Business Operations for Electronic Systems from July 2008 to June 2011 and as Vice President of Finance and Business Operations for Space Systems from September 2007 to June 2008. Robert J. Stevens (60), Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Stevens has served as Chairman of the Board since April 2005 and Chief Executive Officer since August 2004, and previously served as President from October 2000 to December 2009. Bruce L. Tanner (52), Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Mr. Tanner has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since September 2007. He previously served as Vice President of Finance and Business Operations for Aeronautics from April 2006 to August 2007, and Vice President of Finance and Business Operations for Electronic Systems from May 2002 to March 2006. 18


  • Page 27

    PART II ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES At January 31, 2012, we had 35,396 holders of record of our common stock, par value $1 per share. Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol LMT. Information concerning the stock prices based on intra-day trading prices as reported on the NYSE composite transaction tape and dividends paid during the past two years is as follows: Common Stock – Dividends Paid Per Share and Market Prices Dividends Paid Per Share Market Prices (High-Low) Quarter 2011 2010 2011 2010 First $.75 $.63 $82.43 – $69.62 $87.18 – $73.61 Second .75 .63 81.92 – 75.10 87.06 – 74.36 Third .75 .63 82.23 – 66.36 76.34 – 68.19 Fourth 1.00 .75 81.86 – 70.37 73.70 – 67.68 Year $3.25 $2.64 $82.43 – $66.36 $87.18 – $67.68 Stockholder Return Performance Graph The following graph compares the total return on a cumulative basis of $100 invested in Lockheed Martin common stock on December 31, 2006 to the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, S&P Aerospace & Defense (S&P Aero) Index, and the S&P Industrials Index. 200 150 JJ J JJJJ HJJ J JJ JJ HHHHHH HHJJJJH J JJ HHHJ JJ 100 HJ J HJ HJH HHHH JJJ J J J H HHH HJ J H HHH HHH J J H H J H HJ J H H H J H H J H HH HHJJ HJJ J H H J HJ H J HJJ HH H H J HJJ H H J J J 50 HJ J - 6 07 7 08 8 D 9 M 9 D 0 M 0 D 1 1 7 07 8 08 9 Se 9 Ju 0 Se 0 Ju 1 Se 1 -0 -0 -0 0 -0 1 -1 1 -1 -0 -0 -0 0 -1 1 -1 1 p- p- p- p- p- n- n- n- n- n- ec ec ec ec ec ec ar ar ar ar ar Se Se Ju Ju Ju M M M D D D LMT S&P 500 S&P Aero S&P Industrials The S&P Aero Index comprises General Dynamics Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc., L3 Communications Holdings, Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Precision Castparts Corporation, Raytheon Company, Rockwell Collins, Inc., Textron Inc., The Boeing Company, and United Technologies Corporation. The stockholder return performance indicated on the graph is not a guarantee of future performance. The S&P Industrials is a capitalization-weighted index that comprises 61 companies. This graph is not deemed to be “filed” with the SEC or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any of our prior or subsequent filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act. 19


  • Page 28

    Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities The following table provides information about our repurchases of common stock during the three-month period ended December 31, 2011. Total Number of Shares Amount Available for Average Price Purchased as Part of Future Share Total Number of Paid Per Publicly Announced Repurchases Under Period Shares Purchased Share Program (1) the Program (2) (in millions) October (September 26, 2011 – October 30, 2011) 860,900 $74.16 860,900 $3,398 November (October 31, 2011 – November 27, 2011) 1,003,715 $75.05 1,003,715 $3,323 December (November 28, 2011 – December 31, 2011) — N/A — $3,323 Total 1,864,615 $74.64 1,864,615 $3,323 (1) We repurchased a total of 1.9 million shares of our common stock for $139 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2011 under a share repurchase program that we announced in October 2010. (2) Our Board of Directors has approved a share repurchase program for the repurchase of our common stock from time-to-time, authorizing an amount available for share repurchases of $6.5 billion. Under the program, management has discretion to determine the dollar amount of shares to be repurchased and the timing of any repurchases in compliance with applicable law and regulation. The program does not have an expiration date. As of December 31, 2011, we had repurchased a total of 43.0 million shares under the program for $3.2 billion. 20


  • Page 29

    ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA (In millions, except per share data) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 OPERATING RESULTS Net sales $46,499 $45,671 $43,867 $41,212 $40,612 Operating profit (a) 3,980 4,049 4,367 4,987 4,444 Net earnings from continuing operations (a)(b) 2,667 2,614 2,967 3,127 2,990 Net earnings (c) 2,655 2,878 2,973 3,185 3,000 EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE Net earnings from continuing operations Basic (a) $ 7.94 $ 7.18 $ 7.71 $ 7.82 $ 7.19 Diluted (a) 7.85 7.10 7.63 7.64 7.00 Net earnings Basic (c) 7.90 7.90 7.73 7.97 7.21 Diluted (c) 7.81 7.81 7.64 7.78 7.02 CASH DIVIDENDS PER COMMON SHARE $ 3.25 $ 2.64 $ 2.34 $ 1.83 $ 1.47 BALANCE SHEET Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments (d) $ 3,585 $ 2,777 $ 2,737 $ 2,229 $ 2,981 Total current assets 14,094 12,893 12,529 10,736 10,973 Goodwill 10,148 9,605 9,948 9,526 9,387 Total assets (e) 37,908 35,113 35,167 33,495 28,961 Total current liabilities 12,130 11,401 10,910 10,702 10,146 Long-term debt, net (d) 6,460 5,019 5,052 3,563 4,303 Total liabilities (e) 36,907 31,616 31,201 30,742 19,236 Stockholders’ equity (e) 1,001 3,497 3,966 2,753 9,725 COMMON SHARES AT YEAR-END 321 346 373 393 409 CASH FLOW DATA Net cash provided by operating activities $ 4,253 $ 3,801 $ 3,487 $ 4,724 $ 4,458 Net cash used for investing activities (813) (573) (1,832) (1,210) (1,425) Net cash used for financing activities (2,119) (3,358) (1,432) (3,994) (2,297) NEGOTIATED BACKLOG $80,700 $78,400 $77,300 $80,200 $76,000 (a) Our operating profit and net earnings from continuing operations included severance charges of $136 million ($88 million or $.26 per share, after tax) in 2011 (Note 2); charges for the Voluntary Executive Separation Program and facilities consolidation totaling $220 million ($143 million or $.38 per share, after tax) in 2010 (Note 2); and noncash pension expense (FAS/CAS) of $922 million, $454 million, and $456 million in 2011, 2010, and 2009. Net earnings from continuing operations per common share benefitted from the significant number of shares repurchased under our share repurchase program (Note 11). (b) Our net earnings from continuing operations included an $89 million reduction in income tax expense through the elimination of liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits in 2011; tax expense of $96 million as a result of health care legislation that eliminated the tax deduction for company-paid retiree prescription drug expenses to the extent they are reimbursed under Medicare Part D in 2010; and a $69 million income tax benefit for the resolution of certain tax matters in 2009 (Note 8). (c) Our net earnings were affected by the items in notes (a) and (b) above, as well as items related to discontinued operations such as a $184 million gain ($.50 per share) on the sale of Enterprise Integration Group in 2010, and $73 million ($.20 per share) of benefits for certain adjustments related to the planned sale of Pacific Architects and Engineers in 2010 (Note 14). (d) The increase in our cash and long-term debt from 2010 to 2011 primarily was due to the issuance of $2.0 billion of long-term notes in 2011, partially offset by our redemption of $584 million in long-term notes in 2011 (Note 9). The increase in our long-term debt from 2008 to 2009 primarily was due to the issuance of $1.5 billion of long-term notes in 2009. (e) The increase in our total assets and total liabilities and decrease in stockholders’ equity from 2007 to 2008 and 2010 to 2011 primarily was due to the annual remeasurement of the funded status of our postretirement benefit plans at December 31, 2008 and 2011. The effects of the downward market conditions were included in the 2008 remeasurement. 21


  • Page 30

    ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS Management Overview We are a global security and aerospace company principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and products. We also provide a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and information services. We serve both domestic and international customers with products and services that have defense, civil, and commercial applications, with our principal customers being agencies of the U.S. Government. In 2011, 82% of our $46.5 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor (including 61% from the Department of Defense (DoD)), 17% were from international customers (including foreign military sales (FMS) funded, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Government), and 1% were from U.S. commercial and other customers. Our main areas of focus are in defense, space, intelligence, homeland security, and information technology, including cyber security. We have four business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS), and Space Systems. We organize our business segments based on the nature of the products and services offered. We are operating in an environment that is characterized by both increasing complexity in the global security environment, as well as continuing economic pressures in the U.S. and globally. A significant component of our strategy in this environment is to focus on core program execution, improving the quality and predictability of the delivery of our products and services, and placing more security capability into the hands of our customers at affordable prices. Recognizing that our U.S. Government customers are resource constrained, we are endeavoring to develop and extend our portfolio in a disciplined manner with a focus on international and adjacent markets. Finally, we are focused on cost reduction, through actions such as our workforce reductions in 2011 and programs like our Voluntary Executive Separation Program (VESP) and facility reduction initiatives in 2010, to further enhance the value of our products and services. We expect a slight decline in our 2012 consolidated net sales and segment operating profit as compared to 2011, as our customers prepare to meet new security challenges without the benefit of increased resources. Our 2012 segment operating margin is expected to remain above 11%. Despite the challenges we face, we have a strong balance sheet and we expect to generate strong operating cash flows, which will allow us to continue to invest in technologies to fulfill new mission requirements for our customers, invest in our people so that we have the professional and leadership skills necessary to be successful in this environment, and to return at least 50% of free cash flow1 to investors in the form of share repurchases and dividends. Industry Considerations U.S. Government Business Budget Priorities The U.S. Government continues to focus on developing and implementing spending, tax, and other initiatives to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit. The Administration is attempting to balance decisions regarding defense, homeland security, and other federal spending priorities in a greatly constrained fiscal environment imposed by the enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Budget Act), which reduces defense spending by $487 billion over a ten-year period starting in fiscal year 2012. Absent a significant redress of the structural disconnect between revenues and expenditures that can only be addressed through major tax and mandatory spending program reforms, it is likely that discretionary spending by the federal government will remain constrained for several years. Although some specific priorities and initiatives may change from year to year, the investments and acquisitions we have made have been focused on aligning our businesses to address what we believe are the most critical national priorities and mission areas. The possibility remains, however, that one or more of our programs could be reduced, extended, or terminated as a result of the Administration’s continuing assessment of priorities. Notably, should Congress and the Administration fail to change or delay a pending sequestration of appropriations in fiscal year 2013 imposed by the Budget Act, our customers could see their budgets 1 We define free cash flow as cash from operations as determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), less the amount identified as expenditures for property, plant and equipment and capitalized internal-use software as presented on our Statements of Cash Flows. 22


  • Page 31

    dramatically reduced across the board in January 2013 with an attendant impact upon procurement of products and services. While the impact of sequestration is yet to be determined, automatic across-the-board budget cuts would approximately double the amount of the ten-year $487 billion top line reduction already reflected in the defense funding over a ten-year period, with a $52 billion reduction occurring in the government’s fiscal year 2013. The resulting automatic across-the-board budget cuts in sequestration would have significant consequences to our business and industry. There would be disruption of ongoing programs and initiatives, facilities closures and personnel reductions that would severely impact advanced manufacturing operations and engineering expertise, and accelerate the loss of skills and knowledge, directly undermining a key provision of the new security strategy, which is to preserve the industrial base. The Administration’s spending priorities were released on February 13, 2012 with the submission of the President’s Budget Request for fiscal year 2013. The government’s 2013 fiscal year runs from October 2012 to September 2013. Every year, Congress must approve or revise the proposals contained in the President’s annual budget request through enactment of appropriations bills and other policy legislation, which then require final Presidential approval. The outcome of the federal budget process has a direct effect on our business. Department of Defense Business The passage of the Budget Act signaled the end of ten years of growth in the DoD base budget and imposed specific caps on security and non-security spending beginning in fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2013 request of $525 billion for the DoD base budget is the first to reflect the reduced spending levels imposed by the Budget Act and is consistent with its caps on discretionary spending. The fiscal year 2013 request represents a decline of about 1% below the fiscal year 2012 DoD baseline appropriated level of $531 billion. Preliminary insights into national security funding priorities for fiscal year 2013 and beyond were revealed on January 26, 2012 by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, which were consistent with the fiscal year 2013 budget request. Specifically, the defense spending proposal estimates DoD base budgets that are essentially flat in real terms from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017. In prior years, the Administration has requested and Congress has provided funds for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other unforeseeable contingency or peacekeeping operations, through a separate Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding outside of the base DoD budget. The OCO funding for fiscal year 2012 totaled $115 billion, and the Administration has requested $88 billion for fiscal year 2013. This significant reduction reflects the completion of U.S. military operations in Iraq in 2011. Our net sales historically have not been significantly dependent on overseas contingency or supplemental funding requests, and therefore, we continue to focus our attention on the DoD’s base budget for support and funding of our programs. In December 2011, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations act for fiscal year 2012 to finance all U.S. Government activities through September 30, 2012, the end of its fiscal year. This full year method of financing eliminated much of the uncertainty and inefficiency in procurement of products and services that characterized the first quarter of the government’s fiscal year 2012 when the operations of the federal government were financed through a series of continuing resolution temporary funding measures. As we begin 2012, presidential election year activities will likely mean a shortened session for Congress that will have to address the annual spending bills but also broader and more contentious policy issues associated with sequestration and tax policy. Given the complexity and sensitivity of these issues, Congress may resort to returning for a lame duck session after the November 2012 elections in order to deal with these more contentious issues. The fiscal year 2013 budget proposal reflects the Administration’s new national security strategy and is consistent with the lower spending levels imposed by the Budget Act. Despite the reduced defense spending levels in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, we believe our broad mix of programs and capabilities continue to position us favorably to support the current and future needs of the DoD and our programs are well supported in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. This view was strongly supported by the Secretary of Defense’s initial public release of elements of the fiscal year 2013 defense budget request on January 26, 2012. For example, the budget supports continuation of all three variants of the F-35 and still maintains the same ultimate inventory objective of 2,443 aircraft for the U.S. Government as last year, although ramp up of production will be slowed due to budgetary constraints in the near term to allow for more testing and to minimize design changes impacting production aircraft. Additionally, the Secretary’s preliminary release specifically cited continued support for systems where we are the prime contractor or a major subcontractor such as the Global Positioning Satellite program, the Advanced Extremely High Frequency system, the Space-Based Infrared System, Phased Adaptive Approach missile defense system, DDG-51 AEGIS destroyer, and continued operation of the U-2 manned ISR aircraft. 23


  • Page 32

    Given the Administration’s emphasis on affordability and the need to find further efficiencies in the management and operations of DoD, the need for more affordable logistics and sustainment, expansive use of information technology and knowledge-based solutions, and vastly improved levels of network and cyber security, all appear to continue to be national priorities. To address these priorities, we continue to focus on growing our portfolio in these areas, diversifying our business, and expanding into adjacent businesses and programs that include surface naval vessels, rotary wing aviation, and land vehicles. Our products are represented in almost every aspect of land, sea, air, and space-based missile defense, including the Aegis Combat System, the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile program, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) transportable defensive missile system. Even as future quantities may be adjusted to reflect reduced government resources for defense, we continue to perform on contracts to develop and deliver essential munitions, missile, and other systems, such as Hellfire, Javelin, Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, and Q-53 (formerly EQ-36) radar systems, and the Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS). We also have unmanned systems capabilities, including air, ground, and underwater systems. We have a significant presence in the support and modernization of the DoD’s information technology systems. We see opportunities for expansion of our sustainment and logistical support activities to enhance the longevity and cost- effectiveness of the systems procured by our customers, and for improving global supply chain management. Non-Department of Defense Business Our experience in the defense arena, together with our core information technology and services expertise, has enabled us to provide products and services to a number of government agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Energy, the U.S. Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As with the DoD, all other departments and agencies were impacted by the Budget Act. For fiscal year 2013 there is a separate non-security discretionary spending cap applied to all non-DoD entities that were not included under the security cap. The result would be that budgets for fiscal year 2013 and beyond will be reduced further below last year’s estimates. We have continued to expand our capabilities in critical intelligence, knowledge management, and e-Government solutions for our customers, including the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We also provide program management, business strategy and consulting, complex systems development and maintenance, complete life-cycle software support, information assurance, and enterprise solutions. We believe that there will be continued demand by federal and civil government agencies for upgrading and investing in new information technology systems and solutions in order to reduce costs of operations, but at a slower pace in the near term. Consistent with our DoD business, more affordable logistics and sustainment, a more expansive use of information technology and knowledge-based solutions, and improved levels of network and cyber security all appear to be priorities in our non-DoD business as well. Homeland security, critical infrastructure protection, and improved service levels for civil government agencies also appear to be high customer priorities. The continuing strong emphasis on homeland security may increase demand for our capabilities in areas such as air traffic management, ports, waterways and cargo security, biohazard detection systems for postal equipment, employee identification and credential verification systems, information systems security, and other global security systems solutions. Other Business Considerations International Business We remain committed to growth in our sales to international customers. We conduct business with foreign governments primarily through Aeronautics and Electronic Systems. Our international sales are comprised of FMS through the U.S. Government and direct commercial contracts. In Aeronautics, the U.S. Government and eight foreign government partners are working together on the design, testing, production, and sustainment of the F-35 Lightning II, while other countries such as Israel and Japan have selected the F-35 as their next generation combat aircraft. We expect the first international deliveries of the F-35 to begin in 2012. The F-16 Fighting Falcon has been selected by 26 customers worldwide, including recent orders from Iraq and Oman, with 54 follow-on buys from 15 countries. We continue to expand the C-130J Super Hercules air mobility aircraft’s international footprint with customers in 15 countries. In global sustainment, we are leveraging our value as the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for our major platforms and have set up new production capabilities to provide service life extension, including new wings and support for the U.S., Norway, Canada, and Taiwan’s P-3 fleet. 24


  • Page 33

    With regard to the Aegis Combat System, our Electronic Systems segment performs activities in the development, production, ship integration and test, and lifetime support for ships of international customers such as Japan, Spain, Korea, Norway, and Australia. The system also has been selected to be used as a ground-based missile defense system in Europe, referred to as “Aegis Ashore.” This segment has contracts with the Canadian Government for the upgrade and support of combat systems on Halifax class frigates. The new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is also generating interest from potential international customers. Electronic Systems also produces the PAC-3 missile, an advanced defensive missile designed to intercept incoming airborne threats, for international customers including Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE entered into a FMS agreement with the U.S. Government for the first international sale of the THAAD missile defense system, with other countries having expressed interest. In 2011, the Commonwealth of Australia entered into a FMS agreement for the first international sale of the MH-60R helicopter, for which we are responsible for integrating the common cockpit avionics suite, which marks the first ever purchase of an MH-60R helicopter outside of the U.S., and we also received an order to upgrade the United Kingdom’s Warrior fighting vehicles. To the extent our contracts and business arrangements with international partners include operations in foreign countries, other risks are introduced into our business, including changing economic conditions, fluctuations in relative currency values, regulation by foreign countries, and the potential for deterioration of political relations. Status of the F-35 Program The F-35 program consists of multiple contracts. Under our customer’s acquisition strategy, the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract will be performed concurrently with the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contracts. Concurrent performance of development and production contracts is advantageous in complex programs to test airplanes, shorten the time to field systems, and achieve overall cost savings. Accordingly, we are performing the SDD contract concurrently with LRIP aircraft lots 2 through 6. The SDD portion of the F-35 program is expected to continue into 2017 and has approximately $530 million of fee remaining, only a minor portion of which has been tied to specific performance milestones to date. Any portion of the remaining fee that we or our partners receive will be dependent upon our customer’s evaluation of our progress on program milestones, most of which have yet to be determined by our customer. The current profit booking rate on the SDD contract contemplates that we will earn a portion of these outstanding award fees. Given the size and complexity of the F-35 program, we anticipate that there will be continual reviews related to aircraft quantities, program schedule, cost, and requirements as part of the DoD, Congressional, and international partners’ oversight and budgeting processes. Current program challenges include, but are not limited to, executing flight tests, supplier and partner performance, software development, and receiving funding for the LRIP contracts on a timely basis. In 2011, both of the LRIP lot 1 aircraft and seven of the 12 LRIP lot 2 aircraft were delivered to the U.S. Government. We received additional funding for LRIP 5 and long lead funding for LRIP 6 in 2011. We now have 93 production aircraft on order. Although not exclusively related to the F-35 program, on October 4, 2010, the Defense Contracting Management Agency (DCMA) withdrew its prior validation and determination of compliance of the earned value management system (EVMS) at our Fort Worth, Texas location. EVMS is a tool for managing cost and schedule performance on complex programs. We understand that the DCMA has chosen to re-audit our EVMS system in 2012. The withdrawal of the prior validation and determination of compliance of the EVMS system has no impact on our internal controls over financial reporting. In January 2012, the Secretary of Defense removed the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) fighter variant from “probation” as the STOVL variant completed highly successful initial sea trials aboard the USS Wasp and is demonstrating the kind of performance and maturity that is in line with the other two variants of the F-35. International interest in the F-35 continues to grow with two U.S. Government FMS customers to go along with our eight partner countries. In 2011, the Israeli government signed a letter of offer and acceptance with the U.S. Government for the procurement of F-35 aircraft and the Japanese Ministry of Defense selected the F-35 to be its next generation fighter. Israel and Japan are expected to be the first two countries to receive the F-35 aircraft through the U.S. Government FMS process. 25


  • Page 34

    Portfolio Shaping Activities Overview We continuously strive to strengthen our portfolio of products and services to meet the current and future needs of our customers. We accomplish this in part by our independent research and development activities, and through acquisition, divestiture, and internal realignment activities. We selectively pursue the acquisition of businesses and investments that complement our current portfolio and allow access to new customers or technologies. We have made a number of niche acquisitions of businesses and investments in affiliates during the past several years. We also may explore the divestiture of businesses. In pursuing our business strategy, we routinely conduct discussions, evaluate targets, and enter into agreements regarding possible acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, and equity investments. As part of our business strategy, we seek to identify acquisition or investment opportunities that will expand or complement our existing products and services, or customer base, at attractive valuations. Acquisitions and Divestitures We used $649 million in 2011 for acquisition activities, including the acquisition of businesses and investments in affiliates. We have accounted for the acquisition of businesses under the acquisition method, which requires that all of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed be measured and recorded at their acquisition-date fair values. Acquisitions in 2011 primarily include QTC Holdings Inc. (QTC), which provides outsourced medical evaluation services to the U.S. Government, and Sim-Industries B.V., a commercial aviation simulation company. QTC is included within our IS&GS business segment, and Sim-Industries B.V. is included within our Electronic Systems business segment. The results of operations of these acquisitions have been included in the Statement of Earnings from the date of acquisition in the fourth quarter. During 2011, we committed to a plan to sell Savi Technology, Inc. (Savi), and we closed on the sale of Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc. (PAE). In 2010, we closed on the sale of Enterprise Integration Group (EIG). For additional information, see Note 14 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Results of Operations Since our operating cycle is long-term and involves many types of design, development, and production (DD&P) contracts with varying production delivery schedules, the results of operations of a particular year, or year-to-year comparisons of recorded sales and profits, may not be indicative of future operating results. The following discussions of comparative results among periods should be viewed in this context. All per share amounts cited in these discussions are presented on a “per diluted share” basis from continuing operations, unless otherwise noted. (In millions, except per share data) 2011 2010 2009 Operating Results (a) Net sales $ 46,499 $ 45,671 $ 43,867 Cost of sales (42,795) (41,883) (39,720) Operating profit 3,980 4,049 4,367 Interest expense (354) (345) (308) Other non-operating income, net 5 74 123 Income tax expense (964) (1,164) (1,215) Net earnings from continuing operations 2,667 2,614 2,967 Net earnings (loss) from discontinued operations (12) 264 6 Net earnings 2,655 2,878 2,973 Diluted Earnings Per Common Share (a) Continuing operations $ 7.85 $ 7.10 $ 7.63 Discontinued operations (.04) .71 .01 Total $ 7.81 $ 7.81 $ 7.64 (a) The amounts in the above table reflect, as appropriate, the change in our accounting for services contracts with the U.S. Government from the services accounting method to the percentage-of-completion method (Note 1) and the operating results of Savi as discontinued operations (Note 14). All prior period amounts included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations have been adjusted to reflect these changes. 26


  • Page 35

    The following provides an overview of our consolidated results of operations by focusing on key elements in our Statements of Earnings. Product sales are predominantly generated in the Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, and Space Systems business segments, and most of our services sales are generated in our Electronic Systems and IS&GS business segments. Net Sales (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net Sales Products $36,925 $36,380 $35,689 Services 9,574 9,291 8,178 Total $46,499 $45,671 $43,867 Approximately 95% of our contracts are accounted for using the percentage-of-completion (POC) method of accounting. Under the POC method, we record net sales on contracts based upon our progress towards completion on a particular contract, as well as our estimate of the profit to be earned at completion. The following discussion of material changes in our consolidated net sales should be read in tandem with the following discussion of changes in our consolidated cost of sales and our “Discussion of Business Segments,” because, due to the nature of POC accounting, changes in our sales are typically accompanied by a corresponding change in our cost of sales. Net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion, a $828 million or 2% increase over 2010 net sales of $45.7 billion. The increase was due to a $545 million or 1% increase in product sales and a $283 million or 3% increase in services sales. Net sales for 2010 were $45.7 billion, a $1.8 billion or 4% increase over 2009 net sales of $43.9 billion. The increase was due to a $691 million or 2% increase in product sales and a $1.1 billion or 14% increase in services sales. Product Sales Product sales at Aeronautics increased about $1.2 billion in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to production activities on the F-35 LRIP contracts, volume on C-130 programs (including eight additional C-130J aircraft deliveries), F-16 support activities and deliveries (two additional F-16 aircraft deliveries) and volume on C-5 programs (including one additional C-5M aircraft delivery) partially offset by lower volume on the F-22 program and F-35 SDD contract. Electronic Systems’ product sales increased approximately $60 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to production on air defense programs (including PAC-3 and THAAD) and the LCS program partially offset by lower volume on certain ship and aviation programs, tactical missile programs (including Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)) and fire control programs. Product sales decreased at IS&GS in 2011 compared to 2010 by about $700 million primarily due to the absence of the Decennial Response Integration System (DRIS) program that supported the 2010 U.S. census and a decline in activities on the Airborne Maritime Fixed Station Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program. Product sales at Space Systems declined about $60 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to lower sales on the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion) program and the NASA External Tank program, due to the completion of the Space Shuttle program, partially offset by higher volume on fleet ballistic missile programs and commercial satellites. Product sales at Aeronautics increased about $1.0 billion in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to production volume on the F-35 LRIP contracts, activities on C-130 programs (including nine additional C-130J aircraft deliveries), and volume on C-5 programs (including one additional C-5M aircraft delivery) partially offset by lower volumes on the F-22 program, F-35 SDD contract and F-16 (including 11 fewer F-16 aircraft deliveries) program. Electronic Systems’ product sales increased approximately $125 million in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to production on air defense programs (including PAC-3) and tactical missile programs (including Hellfire, MLRS, and JASSM) partially offset by lower sales on various underseas programs. IS&GS’ product sales were relatively unchanged between 2010 and 2009 as increasing activities on DRIS were offset by lower activities on many smaller programs. Product sales at Space Systems decreased about $460 million in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to lower volume on defensive missile systems, activities on the NASA External Tank program due to the wind down of the Space Shuttle program and volume from commercial satellite and launch vehicle activities. There was one commercial satellite delivery in both 2010 and 2009, and there were no commercial launches in 2010 compared to one commercial launch in 2009. 27


  • Page 36

    Services Sales Services sales at Electronic Systems increased about $165 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to growth on the Special Operations Forces Contractor Logistics Support Services (SOF CLSS) program partially offset by lower volume on various other logistic and training services programs. Services sales at IS&GS increased approximately $155 million in 2011 compared to 2010 due to activities on a number of smaller contracts. Most of our services sales are in the Electronic Systems and IS&GS business segments. Services sales at Electronic Systems increased about $645 million in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to growth on various logistic and training programs and the start of the SOF CLSS program in the third quarter of 2010. IS&GS’ services sales increased about $310 million in 2010 compared to 2009 due to activities on the Hanford Mission Support contract and numerous other services contracts at IS&GS. Cost of Sales Cost of sales, for both products and services, consist of materials, labor, and subcontracting costs, as well as an allocation of indirect costs (overhead and general and administrative). For each of our contracts, we manage the nature and amount of costs at the contract level, which form the basis for estimating our total costs at completion of the contract. Management evaluates performance on our contracts by focusing on net sales and operating profit, and not by type or amount of operating expense. Consequently, our discussion of business segment performance focuses on net sales and operating profit, consistent with our approach for managing the business. This approach is consistent with the overall life cycle of our contracts, as management assesses the bidding of each contract by focusing on net sales and operating profit, and monitors performance on our contracts in a similar manner through their completion. We regularly provide customers with reports of our costs as the contract progresses. The cost information in the reports is accumulated in a manner specified by the requirements of each contract. For example, cost data provided to our customer for a product would typically align to the subcomponents of that product (such as a wing-box on an aircraft) or for services, the type of work being performed (such as help-desk support). Our contracts generally are cost-based, which allows for the recovery of costs in the pricing of our products and services. Most of our contracts generally are bid and negotiated with our customers based on the mutual awareness of our estimated costs to provide the product or service. This approach for negotiating contracts with our U.S. Government customers generally allows for the recovery of our costs. We also may enter into long-term supply contracts for certain materials or components, to coincide with the production schedule of certain products and to ensure their availability at known unit prices. (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Cost of sales Cost of product sales $(32,968) $(32,539) $(31,643) % of product sales 89.3% 89.4% 88.7% Cost of services sales (8,514) (8,382) (7,406) % of services sales 88.9% 90.2% 90.6% Severance and other charges (136) (220) — Other unallocated corporate costs (1,177) (742) (671) Total $(42,795) $(41,883) $(39,720) Due to the nature of POC accounting, changes in our cost of product and services sales are typically accompanied by changes in our net sales. The following discussion of material changes in our consolidated cost of sales should be read in tandem with the preceding discussion of changes in our consolidated net sales and with our “Discussion of Business Segments.” Cost of sales was $42.8 billion in 2011, a $912 million or 2% increase over 2010 cost of sales of $41.9 billion. The increase was due to a $429 million increase in cost of product sales, a $132 million increase in cost of services sales and a $435 million increase in other unallocated corporate costs, partially offset by a reduction in severance and other charges of $84 million as further discussed in the following sections. Cost of sales was $41.9 billion in 2010, a $2.2 billion or 5% increase over 2009 cost of sales of $39.7 billion. The increase was due to a $896 million increase in cost of product sales, a $976 million increase in cost of services sales, a $71 million increase in other unallocated corporate costs and an increase for severance and other charges of $220 million, as further discussed in the following sections. 28


  • Page 37

    Cost of Product Sales Cost of product sales at Aeronautics increased by about $1.1 billion in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to production volume on various programs, including F-35 LRIP contracts, and the impact of additional aircraft deliveries. Cost of product sales for Electronic Systems was relatively unchanged between 2011 and 2010. Cost of product sales at IS&GS decreased about $560 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to the absence of the DRIS program and lower volume on the JTRS program. Cost of product sales decreased at Space Systems by about $120 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to lower volume on the NASA External Tank and Orion programs. Cost of product sales at Aeronautics increased by about $1.1 billion in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to production activities on various programs, including F-35 LRIP contracts, and the impact of aircraft deliveries. Cost of product sales at Electronic Systems increased about $115 million in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to volume on air defense and tactical missile programs. IS&GS’ cost of product sales were relatively unchanged between 2010 and 2009. Cost of product sales at Space Systems declined about $400 million in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to lower volume on various programs, including the NASA External Tank, and the absence of a commercial launch as compared to the prior year. The 0.70% increase in the percentage of cost of product sales relative to product sales in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily was due to the increased development and initial production work on the F-35 program and less work on mature programs, such as F-22 and F-16. Development and initial production contracts yield lower profits than mature full rate programs. Cost of Services Sales Cost of services sales at Electronic Systems increased about $180 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to SOF CLSS. Cost of services sales at IS&GS decreased by about $55 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to the retirement of risks during 2011 and the recognition of reserves on various programs in 2010. The 1.3% decrease in the percentage of cost of services sales relative to services sales in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily was due to the retirement risks and other factors on numerous programs at IS&GS, partially offset by volume on SOF CLSS, which provides a lower margin relative to other Electronic Systems programs. Most of our services sales are in the Electronic Systems and IS&GS business segments. Cost of services sales at Electronic Systems increased about $535 million in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to volume on various logistics activities, as well as the start of the SOF CLSS program. IS&GS’ cost of services sales increased approximately $325 million in 2010 compared to 2009 due to volume on various service contracts, including the Hanford Mission Support contract. Most of our services sales are in the Electronic Systems and IS&GS business segments. Severance and other charges During 2011, we recorded charges related to certain severance actions totaling $136 million, net of state tax benefits. Of these severance charges, $49 million and $48 million related to our Aeronautics and Space Systems business segments, and $39 million related to our IS&GS business segment and Corporate Headquarters. These charges reduced our net earnings in 2011 by $88 million ($.26 per share). These severance actions resulted from a strategic review of these businesses and our Corporate Headquarters to better align our organization and cost structure with changing economic conditions. The workforce reductions at the business segments also reflect changes in program lifecycles, where several of our major programs are transitioning out of development and into production, and certain programs are ending. The charges consisted of severance costs associated with the planned elimination of certain positions through either voluntary or involuntary actions. In 2010, we recorded a charge of $178 million, net of state tax benefits, related to the VESP. The charge, which included lump-sum special payments for qualifying executives, reduced our net earnings by $116 million ($.31 per share). The amounts of the VESP attributable to our business segments were $25 million at Aeronautics, $38 million at Electronic Systems, $42 million at IS&GS, and $41 million at Space Systems. The remaining $32 million was attributable to our Corporate Headquarters. Also, in 2010, we recorded a $42 million charge related to our decision to consolidate certain operations within our Electronic Systems business segment, including the closure of a facility in Eagan, Minnesota. This charge reduced our net earnings for 2010 by $27 million ($.07 per share). The majority of the charge was associated with the accrual of severance payments to employees, with the remainder associated with impairment of assets. We expect to recover a substantial amount of these severance charges, including the charge related to the VESP, in future periods through the pricing of our products and services to the U.S. Government and other customers. While the VESP is expected to be recovered over several years, the other severance charges would typically be expected to be recovered within a one-year period. For example, Space Systems recovered most of its severance charge in the second half of 2011. 29


  • Page 38

    Other unallocated corporate costs Other unallocated corporate costs principally includes the non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment, stock compensation, and other corporate costs. These costs are not allocated to the business segments and, therefore, are excluded from the costs of product and services sales (see Note 4 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a description of these items). The $435 million increase between 2011 and 2010 primarily was attributable to an increase in the non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment of $468 million, which included increased FAS pension expense in 2011 compared to 2010 due to the decrease in the discount rate in 2011, together with the effect of the recognition of the 2008 investment losses, partially offset by the effects of investment gains in 2009 and 2010 (each as compared to our 8.50% long-term rate of return assumption). For more information, see the related discussion in Critical Accounting Policies under the caption “Postretirement Benefit Plans.” Other unallocated corporate costs increased $71 million between 2010 and 2009 primarily due to fluctuations in expense associated with a number of corporate activities. Changes in our cost of sales between periods were not material, except as described above. The period-over-period change in our cost of sales was due to the volume of costs resulting from production, deliveries of products, and/or services provided on our portfolio of contracts. We have not identified any developing trends in cost of sales that would have a material impact on our future operations. Operating Profit Our operating profit for 2011 was $4.0 billion, essentially unchanged from 2010. The increase in the non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment was offset by increases in operating profit in every business segment, a decrease in severance and other charges, and a decrease in other unallocated corporate costs attributable to various corporate activities. Our operating profit for 2010 was $4.0 billion, a decrease of 7% compared to operating profit of $4.4 billion in 2009. The decline in operating profit of $318 million primarily was attributable to the effects of severance and other charges, net of state tax benefits, of $220 million (Note 2). Interest Expense Interest expense for 2011 was $354 million, about the same as in 2010. Increased interest expense from the $2.0 billion issuance of long-term debt late in the third quarter of 2011 partially was offset by the redemption of certain notes in the fourth quarter of 2011. Interest expense for 2010 was $345 million, or $37 million higher than 2009. The increase mainly was driven by interest expense on the $1.5 billion of long-term notes issued in the fourth quarter of 2009. Other Non-Operating Income, Net Other non-operating income, net was $5 million in 2011, compared to $74 million in 2010. The decrease primarily was due to premiums of $48 million on early extinguishments of debt (Note 9) and lower net unrealized gains on marketable securities held to fund certain non-qualified employee benefit obligations in 2011. Other non-operating income, net was $74 million in 2010, compared to $123 million in 2009. The change between periods primarily reflects lower net unrealized gains on marketable securities held to fund certain non-qualified employee benefit obligations. Income Tax Expense Our effective income tax rate from continuing operations was 26.5% for 2011, 30.8% for 2010, and 29.1% for 2009. These rates were lower than the statutory rate of 35% for all periods due to tax benefits for U.S. manufacturing activities, the deduction of dividends related to certain of our defined contribution plans with an employee stock ownership plan feature, and the research and development (R&D) tax credit. The 2011 effective tax rate was affected by the completion by the U.S. Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation of its review of IRS Appeals’ resolution of certain adjustments related to tax years 2003-2008. As a result of completion of the review in April 2011, we recorded a reduction in income tax expense of $89 million in 2011. The effective tax rates for 2011 and 2010 also included additional tax benefits related to U.S. manufacturing activities primarily due to an increase in 2011 and 2010 qualified production activity income and an increase in the U.S. manufacturing activity deduction rate from 6% to 9%. 30


  • Page 39

    The 2010 effective tax rate was affected by the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which eliminated the tax deduction for company-paid retiree prescription drug expenses to the extent they are reimbursed under Medicare Part D, beginning in 2013. As a result, we recorded additional income tax expense of $96 million in 2010. The 2009 effective tax rate reflected a reduction of income tax expense of $69 million primarily arising from the resolution of IRS examinations of the years 2005 through 2007 and 2008. The Administration’s recent proposal to lower the corporate tax rate would require us to reduce our deferred tax assets upon enactment of the related tax legislation with a corresponding material, one-time increase to income tax expense; however, our income tax expense and payments would be reduced in subsequent years. Net Earnings from Continuing Operations We reported net earnings from continuing operations of $2.7 billion ($7.85 per share) in 2011, $2.6 billion ($7.10 per share) in 2010, and $3.0 billion ($7.63 per share) in 2009. Both net earnings from continuing operations and earnings per share were affected by the factors discussed above. In addition, earnings per share has benefitted from a significant number of shares repurchased under our share repurchase program, partially offset by common stock issued under our stock-based compensation and defined contribution plans. Share repurchases of 31.8 million, 33.0 million, and 24.9 million in 2011, 2010, and 2009 represented 9%, 9%, and 6% of our shares outstanding at the beginning of each year. Net Earnings from Discontinued Operations Net earnings from discontinued operations included the operating results of Savi for all periods presented. Discontinued operations also included PAE for 2009, 2010, and through the date of its sale on April 4, 2011, and those of EIG for 2009 and through the date of its sale on November 22, 2010. We reported a net loss from discontinued operations of $12 million ($.04 per share) in 2011, and net earnings from discontinued operations of $264 million ($.71 per share) in 2010 and $6 million ($.01 per share) in 2009. Net earnings from discontinued operations for 2011 included a net benefit of $40 million related to the decision to sell Savi, the principal driver of which is the recognition of a deferred tax asset for book and tax basis differences. A similar tax benefit of $15 million related to the sale of PAE was also recorded in 2011. Net earnings from discontinued operations for 2010 included a gain, net of income taxes, of $184 million ($.50 per share) from the sale of EIG. Additionally, as a result of our decision to sell PAE in 2010, we recorded net adjustments that increased 2010 earnings from discontinued operations by $73 million ($.20 per share). For additional information, see Note 14 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Discussion of Business Segments We operate in four business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, IS&GS, and Space Systems. We organize our business segments based on the nature of the products and services offered. The following table presents net sales and operating profit of our four business segments. Net sales exclude intersegment revenue, as these activities are eliminated in consolidation. Intercompany transactions are generally negotiated under terms and conditions similar to other government and commercial contracts. Operating profit of the business segments includes the equity earnings or losses from investees in which certain of our business segments hold equity interests, because the activities of the investees are closely aligned with the operations of those segments. Operating profit of the business segments excludes the non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment discussed below; expense for certain stock-based compensation programs, including costs for stock options and restricted stock units; the effects of items not considered part of management’s evaluation of segment operating performance, such as the severance charges in 2011 and the charges in 2010 related to the VESP and facilities consolidation within Electronic Systems (Note 2); gains or losses from divestitures (Note 14); the effects of legal settlements; corporate costs not allocated to the business segments; and other miscellaneous corporate activities. The items other than the charges related to severance, the VESP, and facilities consolidation are included in “Other unallocated corporate expense, net” in the following table which reconciles operating profit from the business segments to operating profit in our Statements of Earnings. The charges related to severance, the VESP, and facilities consolidation are presented together as a separate reconciling item. 31


  • Page 40

    During the fourth quarter of 2011, we realigned an immaterial supply chain services business from our Aeronautics business segment to our Electronic Systems business segment. The realignment had no effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. The financial information in the following table has been reclassified to reflect this realignment. (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net Sales Aeronautics $14,362 $13,109 $11,988 Electronic Systems 14,622 14,399 13,630 Information Systems & Global Solutions 9,381 9,921 9,599 Space Systems 8,134 8,242 8,650 Total $46,499 $45,671 $43,867 Operating Profit Aeronautics $ 1,630 $ 1,498 $ 1,567 Electronic Systems 1,788 1,748 1,648 Information Systems & Global Solutions 874 814 874 Space Systems 989 968 967 Total business segments 5,281 5,028 5,056 Unallocated corporate expense: Non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment: FAS pension expense (1,821) (1,442) (1,036) Less: CAS expense (899) (988) (580) Non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment (a) (922) (454) (456) Severance and other charges (136) (220) — Stock compensation expense and other, net (b) (243) (305) (233) Total unallocated corporate expense, net (1,301) (979) (689) Total operating profit $ 3,980 $ 4,049 $ 4,367 (a) FAS pension expense increased in 2011 compared to 2010, and in 2010 compared to 2009, due to the decrease in the discount rate each year, together with the effect of the recognition of investment losses from 2008, partially offset by the effects of investment gains in 2009 and 2010 (each as compared to our 8.50% long-term rate of return assumption). The segment operating profit includes pension expense only as determined and funded in accordance with U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). The non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment represents the difference between pension expense calculated in accordance with GAAP and pension costs calculated and funded in accordance with CAS. The non-cash FAS/CAS pension adjustment is expected to be about $835 million in 2012. For more information, see the related discussion in Critical Accounting Policies under the caption “Postretirement Benefit Plans”). (b) The change in stock compensation expense and other, net between the periods primarily was due to fluctuations in expense associated with various corporate activities, none individually significant. The following segment discussions also include information relating to negotiated backlog for each segment. Total negotiated backlog was approximately $80.7 billion, $78.4 billion, and $77.3 billion at December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. These amounts included both funded backlog (unfilled firm orders for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer – Congress in the case of U.S. Government agencies) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding has not yet been appropriated). Negotiated backlog does not include unexercised options or task orders to be issued under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Funded backlog was approximately $55.1 billion at December 31, 2011. Our net sales are derived from long-term contracts for DD&P activities and for services provided to the U.S. Government as well as FMS conducted through the U.S. Government. We account for these contracts, as well as DD&P contracts with non-U.S. Government customers, under the POC method of accounting which represent approximately 95% of our net sales. We derive our remaining net sales from contracts to provide services to non-U.S. Government customers, which we account for under the services method of accounting. Under the POC method of accounting, we record sales on contracts based upon our progress towards completion on a particular contract as well as our estimate of the profit to be earned at completion. Cost-reimbursable contracts, which account for the majority of our net sales, provide for the payment of allowable costs plus a fee. For fixed-priced contracts, net sales and cost of sales are recognized as products are delivered or as costs are incurred. Due to the nature of the POC method of accounting, changes in our cost of sales are typically accompanied by a related change in our net sales. 32


  • Page 41

    Changes in volume refer to increases or decreases in net sales resulting from varying production activity levels, deliveries, or service levels on individual contracts. Volume changes typically include a corresponding change in segment operating profit based on the current profit booking rate for a particular contract. For example, if the cost volume on a cost- reimbursement-type contract increased or decreased compared with a prior period, sales and operating profit for that contract also will be increased or decreased. Changes in performance refer to increases or decreases in the estimated profit booking rates on our POC contracts and usually relate to revisions in the total estimated costs at completion that reflect improved or deteriorated conditions on a particular contract. For example, improved conditions typically result from the retirement of risks on contracts. Such changes in estimated profit booking rates are recognized in the current period and reflect the inception-to-date effect of such changes. For example, if we increase the estimated profit booking rate on a cost-reimbursable contract, the increase in sales and operating profit for that contract will reflect a higher return on sales in the current period due to the recognition of the higher profit booking rate on both current period costs as well as previously incurred costs. Many of our contracts are multi-billion dollar contracts that span several years and include highly complex technical requirements. At the outset of a contract, we identify and monitor risks to the achievement of the technical, schedule, and costs aspects of the contract, and assess the effects of those risks on our estimates of total costs to complete the contract. The estimates consider the technical requirements (for example, a newly-developed product versus a mature product), the schedule and associated tasks (for example, the number and type of milestone events), and costs (for example, material, labor, subcontractor and overhead). The initial profit booking rate of each contract considers risks surrounding the ability to achieve the technical requirements, schedule, and costs in the initial estimated costs at completion. Profit booking rates may increase during the performance of the contract if we successfully retire risks surrounding the technical, schedule and costs aspects of the contract. All of the estimates are subject to change during the performance of the contract and may affect the profit booking rate. We have a number of programs that are designated as classified by the U.S. Government and cannot be specifically described. The operating results of these classified programs are included in our consolidated and business segment results, and are subjected to the same oversight and internal controls as our other programs. Aeronautics Our Aeronautics business segment is engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, sustainment, support, and upgrade of advanced military aircraft, including combat and air mobility aircraft, unmanned air vehicles, and related technologies. Aeronautics also provides logistics support, sustainment, and upgrade modification services for its aircraft. Aeronautics’ major programs include the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-22 Raptor, C-130J Hercules, and the C-5M Super Galaxy. Aeronautics’ operating results included the following: (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net sales $14,362 $13,109 $11,988 Operating profit 1,630 1,498 1,567 Operating margin 11.3% 11.4% 13.1% Backlog at year-end 30,500 27,500 26,800 Net sales for the Aeronautics segment increased $1.3 billion, or 10%, in 2011 compared to 2010. The growth in net sales primarily was due to higher volume of about $850 million for work performed on the F-35 LRIP contracts as production increased, higher volume of about $745 million for C-130 programs due to an increase in deliveries (33 C-130J aircraft delivered in 2011 compared to 25 during 2010) and support activities, about $425 million for F-16 support activities and an increase in aircraft deliveries (22 F-16 aircraft delivered in 2011 compared to 20 during 2010), and approximately $90 million for higher volume on C-5 programs (two C-5M aircraft delivered in 2011 compared to one during 2010). These increases partially were offset by a decline in net sales of approximately $675 million due to lower volume on the F-22 program, which will continue to decline as production winds down with final deliveries expected to be completed in 2012, and lower net sales of about $155 million for the F-35 SDD contract as development work decreased. Net sales for the Aeronautics segment increased by $1.1 billion, or 9%, in 2010 compared to 2009. The increase primarily was due to additional volume from work performed on the F-35 LRIP contracts of approximately $1.6 billion, higher volume of about $690 million for C-130 programs due to an increase in deliveries (25 C-130J aircraft delivered in 2010 as compared to 16 in 2009) and support activities, and higher volume on C-5 programs of about $115 million, including 33


  • Page 42

    delivery of the first C-5M. These increases partially were offset by lower volume of approximately $660 million on the F-35 SDD contract, lower F-16 volume of approximately $340 million primarily due to a reduction of deliveries (20 F-16 deliveries in 2010 compared to 31 in 2009), and lower volume on the F-22 program of $305 million as production continued to wind down. Operating profit for the Aeronautics segment increased $132 million, or 9%, in 2011 compared to 2010. The increase primarily was attributable to approximately $115 million of higher operating profit on C-130 programs due to increased volume and the retirement of risks, increased volume and risk retirements on F-16 programs of about $50 million and C-5 programs of approximately $20 million, and about $70 million due to risk retirements on other Aeronautics sustainment activities in 2011. These increases partially were offset by a decline in operating profit of approximately $75 million on the F-22 program and F-35 SDD contract primarily due to lower volume and about $55 million on other programs, including F-35 LRIP, primarily due to lower profit rate adjustments in 2011, compared to 2010. Operating profit for the Aeronautics segment decreased by $69 million, or 4%, in 2010 compared to 2009. The decrease primarily was attributable to a decline in operating profit on the F-22 program of about $75 million due to lower volume and a decrease in the level of risk retirements as the production program winds down, lower volume and a decrease in the level of risk retirements of approximately $45 million on the F-35 SDD contract, and a decline in operating profit of about $40 million on the F-16 program due to a reduction of deliveries. These decreases more than offset increased operating profit resulting from higher volume and risk retirements on the F-35 LRIP contracts of approximately $100 million. The decrease in the Aeronautics segment’s operating margin from 2010 to 2009 reflects increased development and initial production work on the F-35 program and less work on more mature programs such as the F-22 and F-16. Development and initial production contracts yield lower profits than mature full rate programs. Accordingly, while net sales increased in 2010 relative to 2009, operating profit decreased and consequently operating margins have declined. Backlog increased in 2011 compared to 2010 mainly due to orders exceeding sales on the F-35 and C-5 programs, which partially were offset by higher sales volume on the C-130 program. Backlog increased in 2010 compared to 2009 mainly due to orders exceeding sales on the C-130, F-35 and C-5 programs, which partially were offset by higher sales volume compared to new orders on the F-22 program in 2010. We expect that Aeronautics’ net sales in 2012 will be comparable with 2011. An increase in net sales on the F-35 LRIP contracts is expected to be mostly offset by a decline in volume on the F-22 production program due to completion of the production program with the last aircraft delivery in the first half of 2012. Operating profit is projected to decrease at a low single digit percentage range from 2011 levels, resulting in a slight decline in operating margins between the years. Electronic Systems Our Electronic Systems business segment provides surface ship and submarine combat systems; sea-based missile defense systems; ship systems integration; littoral combat ships; nuclear instrumentation and control systems for naval submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface warships; air and defense missile systems; air-to-ground precision strike weapons systems; tactical missiles; munitions; fire control and navigation systems for rotary and fixed-wing aircraft; manned and unmanned ground vehicles; mission operations support, readiness, engineering support, and integration services; simulation and training services; and energy programs. Electronic Systems’ major programs include the Aegis Combat System, PAC-3, THAAD, MLRS, Hellfire, JASSM, Apache Fire Control System, LCS, and SOF CLSS. We have classified Savi as discontinued operations (Note 14) and, therefore, financial information related to this business has been excluded from the segment information below. Electronic Systems’ operating results included the following: (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net sales $14,622 $14,399 $13,630 Operating profit 1,788 1,748 1,648 Operating margin 12.2% 12.1% 12.1% Backlog at year-end 24,900 23,400 23,000 Net sales for the Electronic Systems segment increased $223 million, or 2%, in 2011 compared to 2010. The increase was due to higher volume on air defense programs (including PAC-3 and THAAD) of about $420 million, logistics activities 34


  • Page 43

    of about $330 million related to the SOF CLSS program, which began late in the quarter ended September 26, 2010, and the LCS program of approximately $165 million. These increases partially were offset by a decline in volume of approximately $375 million for certain ship and aviation programs (primarily Maritime Patrol Aircraft and PTDS), about $200 million for various logistics and training services, and approximately $115 million for tactical missile and fire control programs. Net sales for the Electronic Systems segment increased by $769 million, or 6%, in 2010 compared to 2009. Contributing to the increases were higher volume of about $430 million on various training and logistics activities (including the SOF CLSS program), increased deliveries on tactical missile programs (including MLRS and JASSM) of approximately $250 million, increased volume on various surface naval warfare programs (the Aegis Combat System) of about $140 million, and higher volume of about $100 million on air defense programs (including PAC-3). These increases partially were offset by lower volume of approximately $185 million on undersea warfare programs. Operating profit for the Electronic Systems segment increased $40 million, or 2%, compared to the corresponding period in 2010. Operating profit increased by about $60 million due to higher volume and retirement of risks on air defense programs (including PAC-3 and THAAD) and approximately $35 million primarily due to the recognition of reserves on certain undersea warfare programs in 2010. These increases partially were offset by approximately $55 million of reserves for contract cost matters on various ship and aviation programs (including the terminated presidential helicopter program). Operating profit for the Electronic Systems segment increased by $100 million, or 6%, in 2010 compared to 2009. The increase primarily was attributable to volume and retirement of risk on various training and logistics services programs of about $50 million, approximately $65 million on tactical missiles programs (including MLRS and JASSM) due to volume and the retirement of risks, and about $40 million due to the retirement of risks on fire control programs. These increases partially were offset by a decline in operating profit of approximately $75 million on undersea warfare programs due to lower volume and recognition of reserves. Backlog increased in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to orders exceeding sales on air defense programs (including THAAD and PAC-3), partially offset by higher sales volume on various training and logistics activities and surface naval warfare programs. Backlog increased in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily from increased orders for air defense and tactical missile programs and on various training and logistics services programs. These increases partially were offset by higher sales volume on ship and aviation systems and surface naval warfare programs. We expect Electronic Systems’ net sales for 2012 will be comparable with 2011. We expect flat to low single digit percentage growth in key programs such as the LCS, offset by a decline in volume on logistics and training services contracts. Operating profit and margin are expected to be comparable with 2011 results. Information Systems & Global Solutions Our IS&GS business segment provides management services, Information Technology (IT) solutions, and advanced technology expertise across a broad spectrum of applications. IS&GS supports the needs of customers in human capital planning, data protection and sharing, cyber-security, financial services, health care, energy and environment, security, space exploration, biometrics, and transportation. IS&GS provides network-enabled situation awareness, delivers communications and command and control capability through complex mission solutions for defense applications, and integrates complex global systems to help our customers gather, analyze, and securely distribute critical intelligence data. IS&GS has a portfolio of many smaller contracts as compared to our other business segments. IS&GS’ major programs include the Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications contract, En-Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) contract, the Hanford Mission Support contract, and the National Science Foundation’s U.S. Antarctic Support program. We have classified PAE and EIG as discontinued operations (Note 14) and, therefore, financial information related to these businesses has been excluded from the segment information below. IS&GS’ operating results included the following: (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net sales $9,381 $9,921 $ 9,599 Operating profit 874 814 874 Operating margin 9.3% 8.2% 9.1% Backlog at year-end 9,300 9,700 10,700 35


  • Page 44

    Net sales for the IS&GS segment decreased $540 million, or 5%, in 2011 compared to 2010. The decrease primarily was attributable to lower volume of approximately $665 million due to the absence of the DRIS program that supported the 2010 U.S. census and a decline in activities on the JTRS program. This decrease partially was offset by increased net sales on numerous programs. Net sales for the IS&GS segment increased $322 million, or 3%, in 2010 compared to 2009. The increase primarily was attributable to higher volume of $620 million on the DRIS program and the Hanford Mission Support contract. These increases partially were offset by lower volume on numerous smaller programs. Operating profit for the IS&GS segment increased $60 million, or 7%, in 2011 compared to 2010. Operating profit increased approximately $180 million due to volume and the retirement of risks in 2011 and the absence of reserves recognized in 2010 on numerous programs (including among others, the NASA Outsourcing Desktop Initiative (ODIN) (about $60 million) and Transportation Worker Identification Credential and Automated Flight Service Station programs). The increases in operating profit partially were offset by the absence of the DRIS program and a decline in activities on the JTRS program of about $120 million. Operating profit for the IS&GS segment decreased $60 million, or 7%, in 2010 compared to 2009. The decrease primarily was attributable to the recognition of reserves of about $55 million on several programs (including, among others, the ODIN program). Lower volume on numerous programs offset increased operating profit from the DRIS program. The decrease in backlog during 2011 compared to 2010 mainly was due to declining activities on the JTRS program and several other smaller programs. The decrease in backlog during 2010 compared to 2009 mainly was due to higher sales volume associated with the DRIS program, the Hanford Mission Support contract, and several other smaller programs. We expect IS&GS will experience a decrease in net sales in the mid to upper single digit percentage range for 2012 as compared to 2011. The decline is primarily due to the completion of various programs including ODIN, the U.K. Census, and JTRS, and we do not expect that this work will be replaced by other contracts due to the fiscal pressures constraining government purchases of IT and other products and services. Operating profit is expected to decline in 2012 in the upper single digit percentage range as a result of the lower sales volume, resulting in a slight decline in operating margins between the years. Space Systems Our Space Systems business segment is engaged in the design, research and development, engineering, and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems, and space transportation systems, including activities related to the planned replacement of the Space Shuttle. Space Systems is responsible for various classified systems and services in support of vital national security systems. Space Systems’ major programs include the Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile, Space- Based Infrared System (SBIRS), Orion, Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) III system, and Mobile User Objective System (MUOS). Space Systems has an ownership interest in United Launch Alliance (ULA), which provides expendable launch services for the U.S. Government, and in United Space Alliance (USA), which provides processing activities for the Space Shuttle program, which is winding down following the completion of the last mission in 2011. Space Systems’ operating results included the following: (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net sales $ 8,134 $ 8,242 $ 8,650 Operating profit 989 968 967 Operating margin 12.2% 11.7% 11.2% Backlog at year-end 16,000 17,800 16,800 Net sales for the Space Systems segment decreased $108 million, or 1%, in 2011 compared to 2010. The decrease in net sales was attributable to a decline of about $90 million related to the NASA External Tank program, which ended in connection with the completion of the last Space Shuttle mission in July 2011, a decline in volume of about $90 million related to the Orion program, and lower volume of approximately $30 million related to government satellites. These decreases partially were offset by higher volume for fleet ballistic and defensive missile systems of about $80 million and commercial satellites of approximately $45 million (one commercial satellite delivery in both 2011 and 2010). Net sales for the Space Systems segment decreased $408 million or 5% in 2010 compared to 2009. The decline principally was due to lower volume on defensive missile systems of approximately $150 million, the NASA External Tank 36


  • Page 45

    program of about $130 million due to the wind down of the Space Shuttle program and volume from commercial satellite and launch vehicle activities of approximately $125 million. There was one commercial satellite delivery in 2010 and 2009 and no commercial launches in 2010 compared to one commercial launch in 2009. Partially offsetting these decreases was a growth of about $35 million due to higher volume in government satellites activities. Operating profit for the Space Systems segment increased $21 million, or 2%, in 2011 compared to 2010. The increase in operating profit principally was attributable to retirement of risks on government satellite programs of about $60 million and decreased equity earnings of about $30 million primarily due to the completion of the Space Shuttle program. Operating profit for the Space Systems segment was unchanged for 2010 compared to 2009. Operating profit increased on government satellites programs by approximately $15 million due to higher volume and risk retirements and higher equity earnings of approximately $40 million. These increases were offset by lower volume and reserve for performance of about $40 million on commercial satellite programs and lower volume on the NASA External Tank program of approximately $15 million. Total equity earnings recognized by the Space Systems segment from ULA and USA represented approximately $230 million, or 23% of this segment’s operating profit during 2011. During 2010, total equity earnings recognized by the Space Systems segment from ULA and USA represented approximately $260 million, or 27% of this segment’s operating profit. Backlog decreased in 2011 compared to 2010 mainly due to higher sales volume associated with the Orion program and on government satellite activities. Backlog increased in 2010 compared to 2009 mainly due to orders exceeding sales on government satellite programs and strategic missile programs, which more than offset higher sales volume compared to new orders on the Orion program in 2010. We expect Space Systems’ net sales to decline in 2012 in the mid single digit percentage range as compared to 2011 primarily due to lower activities on government satellite programs and the Orion program. Operating profit is expected to decline in the mid to upper single digit percentage range in 2012 due to the lower sales volume as well as lower equity earnings from ULA, resulting in a slight decline in operating margins between the years. Liquidity and Cash Flows Our access to capital resources that provide liquidity has not been materially affected by the changing economic and market conditions over the past few years. We continually monitor changes in such conditions so that we can timely respond to any related developments. We have generated strong operating cash flows which have been the primary source of funding for our operations, debt service and repayments, capital expenditures, share repurchases, dividends, acquisitions, and postretirement benefit plan funding. We have accessed the capital markets on limited occasions, as needed or when opportunistic. We expect our cash from operations to continue to be sufficient to support our operations and anticipated capital expenditures for the foreseeable future. We have financing resources available to fund potential cash outflows that are less predictable or more discretionary, as discussed under Capital Structure, Resources, and Other. We have access to the credit markets, if needed, for liquidity or general corporate purposes, including letters of credit to support customer advance payments and for other trade finance purposes such as guaranteeing our performance on particular contracts. Cash received from customers, either from the payment of invoices for work performed or for advances in excess of costs incurred, is our primary source of cash. We generally do not begin work on contracts until funding is appropriated by the customer. Billing timetables and payment terms on our contracts vary based on a number of factors, including the contract type. We generally bill and collect cash more frequently under cost-reimbursable and time-and-materials contracts, which together represent approximately 55% of the sales we recorded in 2011, as we are authorized to bill as the costs are incurred or work is performed. In contrast to cost-reimbursable contracts, for fixed-price contracts, which represented approximately 45% of the revenues we recorded in 2011, we generally do not bill until milestones, including deliveries, are achieved. A number of our fixed-price contracts may provide for performance-based payments which allow us to bill and collect cash as we perform on the contract. The U.S. Government recently has indicated that it would consider progress payments as the baseline for negotiating payment terms on fixed-price contracts, rather than performance-based payments. The use of progress payment provisions on fixed-price contracts may delay our ability to recover costs incurred and affect the timing of our cash flows. 37


  • Page 46

    The majority of our capital expenditures for 2011 and those planned for 2012 can be divided into the categories of facilities infrastructure, equipment, and IT. Expenditures for facilities infrastructure and equipment are generally incurred to support new and existing programs across all of our business segments. For example, we have projects underway in our Aeronautics business segment for facilities and equipment to support production of the F-35 combat aircraft. In addition, we have projects underway to modernize certain of our facilities. We also incur capital expenditures for IT to support programs and general enterprise IT infrastructure as well as for the development or purchase of internal-use software. We have a balanced cash deployment strategy to enhance stockholder value and position ourselves to take advantage of new business opportunities when they arise. Consistent with that strategy, we have invested in our business, including capital expenditures and independent research and development, repurchased shares, increased our dividends, made selective acquisitions of businesses, and managed our debt levels. The following table provides a summary of our cash flow information and the subsequent discussion provides an overview of our execution of this strategy. (In millions) 2011 2010 2009 Net cash provided by operating activities (a) $ 4,253 $ 3,801 $ 3,487 Net cash used for investing activities (a) (813) (573) (1,832) Net cash used for financing activities (2,119) (3,358) (1,432) (a) In the fourth quarter of 2011, we revised the classification of cash payments associated with the development or purchase of internal-use software from operating cash flows to investing cash flows (Note 1). Cash flows for all years above have been adjusted for this change. Cash payments for internal-use software were $173 million in 2011, $254 million in 2010, and $314 million in 2009. Operating Activities Net cash provided by operating activities increased by $452 million to $4.3 billion in 2011 as compared to 2010. The increase in cash flows from operating activities was driven by a $536 million increase in cash provided by operating working capital (defined as accounts receivable and inventories less accounts payable and customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred) as discussed below and $84 million related to lower net income tax payments due to the absence of a payment made in 2010 related to matters pending with IRS appeals. These improvements partially were offset by a $134 million net increase in cash outflows related to defined benefit pension plans, and lower operating results. The increase in cash outflows related to defined benefit pension plans was due to a $45 million increase in contributions paid to the pension trust and a decrease in the recovery of CAS costs on our contracts. The improvement in cash provided by operating working capital changes primarily was due to the timing of payment of accounts payable, which partially was offset by the timing of collections of accounts receivable and customer advance payments. The change in accounts receivable primarily reflects the timing of contract negotiations and related billing activities on the F-35 program at our Aeronautics segment. The decrease in cash flows from customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred was attributable to the C-130 programs at our Aeronautics segment, which was partially offset by various programs (largely PAC-3) at our Electronic Systems segment. Our operating working capital is subject to wide fluctuations based on the timing of cash transactions related to production schedules, timing of progress and advance payments, the acquisition of inventory, the collection of accounts receivable, and the payment of accounts payable. Cash provided by changes in operating working capital balances in 2012 may decrease over 2011 primarily due to the timing of collections of accounts receivable and the payment of accounts payable. Consequently, we expect that net cash provided by operating activities will be lower in 2012. Net cash provided by operating activities increased by $314 million to $3.8 billion in 2010 as compared to 2009. The increase primarily was attributable to changes in our operating working capital balances of $585 million and $187 million related to lower net income tax payments. Partially offsetting these improvements was a net reduction in cash of $350 million related to our defined benefit pension plans. The improvement in cash provided by operating working capital was due to a decline in 2010 accounts receivable balances and an increase in 2010 customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred balances. These improvements partially were offset by a decline in accounts payable balances in 2010 compared to 2009. The decline in accounts receivable primarily was due to higher collections on various programs at Electronic Systems, IS&GS, and Space Systems business segments. The increase in customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred primarily was attributable to an increase on government and commercial satellite programs at Space Systems and C-130 programs at Aeronautics, partially offset by a decrease on various programs at Electronic Systems. The decrease in accounts payable was attributable to the timing of accounts payable activities across all segments. The reduction in cash from defined benefit pension plans was the result of increased contributions to the pension trust of $758 million as compared to 2009, partially offset by an increase in the CAS costs recovered on our contracts. 38


  • Page 47

    Investing Activities Capital expenditures – The majority of our capital expenditures relate to facilities infrastructure and equipment that are generally incurred to support new and existing programs across all of our business segments. We also incur capital expenditures for IT to support programs and general enterprise IT infrastructure. Capital expenditures for property, plant, and equipment amounted to $814 million in 2011, $820 million in 2010, and $852 million in 2009. Costs associated with the development or purchase of internal-use software amounted to $173 million in 2011, $254 million in 2010, and $314 million in 2009, and have trended downward with the completion of certain infrastructure systems. We expect that our operating cash flows will continue to be sufficient to fund our planned annual capital expenditures over the next few years. Acquisitions, divestitures and other activities – Acquisition activities include both the acquisition of businesses and investments in affiliates. We paid $649 million in 2011 for acquisition activities, primarily related to the acquisition of QTC and Sim-Industries B.V. (Note 14), compared to amounts paid in 2010 of $148 million primarily related to investments in affiliates. In 2009, we paid $435 million for acquisition activities. In 2010, we received proceeds of $798 million from the sale of EIG, net of $17 million in transaction costs (Note 14). There were no material divestiture activities in 2011 or 2009. During 2011, we decreased our short-term investments by $510 million compared to an increase of $171 million in 2010. Financing Activities Share activity and dividends – We paid cash totaling $2.5 billion for share repurchases during 2011, which included $63 million for shares we repurchased in December 2010 but that were not paid for until January 2011. In 2010 and 2009, we paid cash totaling $2.4 billion and $1.9 billion for share repurchases. Our share repurchase program provides for the repurchase of our common stock from time-to-time. Under the program, we have discretion to determine the dollar amount of shares to be repurchased and the timing of any repurchases in compliance with applicable law and regulation. In 2011, our Board authorized an additional $3.5 billion for share repurchases, bringing the total authorized amount under the program to $6.5 billion (Note 11). As of December 31, 2011, we had repurchased a total of 43.0 million shares under the program for $3.2 billion, and there remained $3.3 billion available for additional share repurchases. We paid our stockholders cash dividends of $1.1 billion in 2011, $969 million in 2010, and $908 million in 2009. We have increased our quarterly dividend rate in each of the last three years, including a 33% increase in the quarterly dividend rate in the fourth quarter of 2011. We declared quarterly dividends of: $.75 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2011 and $1.00 per share for the last quarter; $.63 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2010 and $.75 per share for the last quarter; and $.57 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2009 and $.63 per share for the last quarter. Cash received from the issuance of our common stock in connection with stock option exercises during 2011, 2010, and 2009 totaled $116 million, $59 million, and $40 million. Those activities resulted in the issuance of 2.3 million shares, 1.4 million shares, and 1.0 million shares during the respective periods. Issuance and repayment of long-term debt – In 2011, we issued a total of $2.0 billion of long-term notes. We used a portion of the proceeds from the long-term notes that were issued in 2011 to redeem all of our $500 million long-term notes due in 2013 with a fixed coupon rate of 4.12%. In 2011, we repurchased $84 million of our long-term notes through open- market purchases. We paid premiums of $48 million in connection with the early extinguishments of certain long-term notes. In 2009, we issued a total of $1.5 billion of long-term notes, and we paid $242 million in repayments of long-term debt based on scheduled maturities. Capital Structure, Resources, and Other At December 31, 2011, we held cash and cash equivalents of $3.6 billion. Our long-term debt, net of unamortized discounts, amounted to $6.5 billion. As of the end of 2011, our long-term debt bears interest at fixed rates and mainly is in the form of publicly-issued notes. As of December 31, 2011, we were in compliance with all covenants contained in our debt and credit agreements. In 2011, we issued $2.0 billion of long-term notes in a registered public offering consisting of $500 million due in 2016 with a fixed coupon interest rate of 2.13%, $900 million due in 2021 with a fixed coupon interest rate of 3.35%, and $600 million due in 2041 with a fixed coupon interest rate of 4.85%. We used a portion of the proceeds to redeem all of our $500 million long-term notes due in 2013 with a fixed coupon rate of 4.12%. In 2011, we repurchased $84 million of our long-term notes through open-market purchases. We paid premiums of $48 million in connection with the early extinguishments of certain long-term notes. 39


  • Page 48

    We issued $728 million of new 5.72% Notes due 2040 (the New Notes) in 2010 in exchange for $611 million of our then outstanding debt securities. We paid a premium of $158 million, of which $117 million was in the form of New Notes and $41 million was paid in cash, which was recorded as a discount and is being amortized as additional interest expense over the life of the New Notes using the effective interest method. The New Notes are included on our Balance Sheet net of unamortized discounts. In 2009, we issued a total of $1.5 billion of long-term notes in a registered public offering, $900 million of which are due in 2019 and have a fixed coupon interest rate of 4.25%, and $600 million of which are due in 2039 and have a fixed coupon interest rate of 5.50%. In August 2011, we entered into a new $1.5 billion revolving credit facility with a group of banks and terminated our existing $1.5 billion revolving credit facility which was to expire in June 2012. The new credit facility expires August 2016, and we may request and the banks may grant, at their discretion, an increase to the new credit facility by an additional amount up to $500 million. There were no borrowings outstanding under either facility through December 31, 2011. Borrowings under the new credit facility would be unsecured and bear interest at rates based, at our option, on a Eurodollar rate or a Base Rate, as defined in the new credit facility. Each bank’s obligation to make loans under the new credit facility is subject to, among other things, our compliance with various representations, warranties and covenants, including covenants limiting our ability and certain of our subsidiaries’ ability to encumber assets and a covenant not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio, as defined in the new credit facility. We have agreements in place with banking institutions to provide for the issuance of commercial paper. There were no commercial paper borrowings outstanding during the year ended December 31, 2011. If we were to issue commercial paper, the borrowings would be supported by the new credit facility. We also have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission through August 2014 to provide for the issuance of an indeterminate amount of debt securities. We actively seek to finance our business in a manner that preserves financial flexibility while minimizing borrowing costs to the extent practicable. We review changes in financial market and economic conditions to manage the types, amounts, and maturities of our indebtedness. We may at times refinance existing indebtedness, vary our mix of variable-rate and fixed-rate debt, or seek alternative financing sources for our cash and operational needs. Our stockholders’ equity was $1.0 billion at December 31, 2011, a decrease of $2.5 billion from December 31, 2010. The decrease primarily was due to the repurchase of 31.8 million common shares for $2.4 billion, dividends declared of $1.1 billion during the year, and net adjustments related to our postretirement benefit plans, including the annual December 31 re-measurement adjustment of $2.9 billion, which on a net basis increased the accumulated other comprehensive loss by $2.2 billion. These decreases partially were offset by net earnings of $2.7 billion, and employee stock activity of $596 million. As we repurchase our common shares, we reduce common stock for the $1 of par value of the shares repurchased, with the remainder of the purchase price over par value recorded as a reduction of additional paid-in capital. Due to the volume of repurchases made under our share repurchase program, additional paid-in capital was reduced to zero, with the remainder of the excess of purchase price over par value of $1.8 billion recorded as a reduction of retained earnings. 40


  • Page 49

    Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements At December 31, 2011, we had contractual commitments to repay debt, make payments under operating leases, settle obligations related to agreements to purchase goods and services, and settle tax and other liabilities. Capital lease obligations were negligible. Payments due under these obligations and commitments are as follows: Payments Due By Period Less Than Years Years After (In millions) Total 1 Year 2 and 3 4 and 5 5 Years Long-term debt (a) $ 6,934 $ — $ 153 $ 954 $ 5,827 Interest payments 6,756 378 736 713 4,929 Other liabilities 2,379 278 451 282 1,368 Operating lease obligations 1,017 264 339 168 246 Purchase obligations: Operating activities 25,109 16,336 7,451 817 505 Capital expenditures 218 162 56 — — Total contractual cash obligations $42,413 $17,418 $9,186 $2,934 $12,875 (a) Long-term debt includes scheduled principal payments only. Amounts related to other liabilities represent the contractual obligations for certain long-term liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2011. Such amounts mainly include expected payments under deferred compensation plans, non-qualified pension plans, environmental liabilities, and business acquisition agreements. Purchase obligations related to operating activities include agreements and contracts that give the supplier recourse to us for cancellation or nonperformance under the contract or contain terms that would subject us to liquidated damages. Such agreements and contracts may, for example, be related to direct materials, obligations to subcontractors, and outsourcing arrangements. Total purchase obligations in the preceding table include approximately $23.2 billion related to contractual commitments entered into as a result of contracts we have with our U.S. Government customers. The U.S. Government generally would be required to pay us for any costs we incur relative to these commitments if they were to terminate the related contracts “for convenience” under the FAR, subject to available funding. This also would be true in cases where we perform subcontract work for a prime contractor under a U.S. Government contract. The termination for convenience language also may be included in contracts with foreign, state, and local governments. We also have contracts with customers that do not include termination for convenience provisions, including contracts with commercial customers. Purchase obligations in the preceding table for capital expenditures generally include amounts for facilities and equipment related to customer contracts. We also may enter into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, as a condition to obtaining orders for our products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. These agreements are designed to enhance the social and economic environment of the foreign country by requiring the contractor to promote investment in the country. Offset agreements may be satisfied through activities that do not require us to use cash, including transferring technology, providing manufacturing and other consulting support to in-country projects, and the purchase by third parties (e.g., our vendors) of supplies from in-country vendors. These agreements also may be satisfied through our use of cash for such activities as purchasing supplies from in-country vendors, providing financial support for in-country projects, and building or leasing facilities for in-country operations. We typically do not commit to offset agreements until orders for our products or services are definitive. The amounts ultimately applied against our offset agreements are based on negotiations with the customer and typically require cash outlays that represent only a fraction of the original amount in the offset agreement. At December 31, 2011, we had outstanding offset agreements totaling $7.6 billion, primarily related to our Aeronautics and Electronic Systems segments, some of which extend through 2025. To the extent we have entered into purchase obligations at December 31, 2011 that also satisfy offset agreements, those amounts are included in the preceding table. Offset programs usually extend over several years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. We historically have not been required to pay material penalties. In connection with our 50% ownership interest of United Launch Alliance, L.L.C. (ULA), we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) have each received distributions totaling $352 million (since ULA’s formation in December 2006) which are subject to agreements between us, Boeing, and ULA, whereby, if ULA does not have sufficient cash resources or credit capacity to make payments under the inventory supply agreement it has with Boeing, both we and Boeing would provide to 41


  • Page 50

    ULA, in the form of an additional capital contribution, the level of funding required for ULA to make those payments. Any such capital contributions would not exceed the amount of the distributions subject to the agreements. We currently believe that ULA will have sufficient operating cash flows and credit capacity, including access to its $400 million revolving credit agreement from third-party financial institutions, to meet its obligations such that we would not be required to make a contribution under these agreements. In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified each other for certain financial support arrangements (e.g., letters of credit or surety bonds provided by either party) and guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations, as it has done through December 31, 2011, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities or guarantees. We have entered into standby letters of credit, surety bonds, and third-party guarantees with financial institutions and other third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and/or the guarantee of future performance on certain of our contracts. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as joint venture partners. At December 31, 2011, we had the following outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds, and guarantees: Commitment Expiration By Period Total Less Than Years Years After (In millions) Commitment 1 Year (a) 2 and 3 (a) 4 and 5 (a) 5 Years (a) Standby letters of credit $2,675 $2,245 $300 $120 $ 10 Surety bonds 367 367 — — — Guarantees 907 1 25 323 558 Total commitments $3,949 $2,613 $325 $443 $568 (a) Approximately $2.1 billion, $53 million, and $3 million of standby letters of credit in the “Less Than 1 Year,” “Years 2 and 3,” and “Years 4 and 5,” periods, and approximately $32 million of surety bonds, are expected to renew for additional periods until completion of the contractual obligation. Included in the table above is approximately $309 million representing letter of credit amounts for which related obligations or liabilities are also recorded on the Balance Sheet, either as reductions of inventories, as customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred, or as other liabilities. Approximately $1.8 billion of the standby letters of credit were issued to secure advance payments received under an F-16 contract from an international customer. These letters of credit are available for draw down in the event of our nonperformance, and the amount available will be reduced as certain events occur throughout the period of performance in accordance with the contract terms. Similar to the letters of credit for the F-16 contract, other letters of credit and surety bonds are available for draw down in the event of our nonperformance. Approximately 85% of the $907 million in third-party guarantees outstanding at December 31, 2011 related to guarantees of the contractual performance of joint ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. This amount represents our estimate of the maximum amount we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the joint venture partners. We evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities, and credit quality of potential joint venture partners. In addition, we generally have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a joint venture partner. We believe our current and former joint venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through December 31, 2011, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees. Critical Accounting Policies Contract Accounting / Sales Recognition Approximately 90% of our net sales are derived from long-term contracts for design, development, and production activities (also referred to as DD&P contracts) and services provided to the U.S. Government, and FMS conducted through the U.S. Government. Approximately 95% of our net sales, including net sales related to DD&P contracts with non-U.S. Government customers, are accounted for using the POC method. The POC model requires that significant estimates and assumptions be made in accounting for the contracts. Our remaining net sales are derived from contracts to provide services to non-U.S. Government customers that are not associated with DD&P activities, which we continue to account for under the services accounting model. 42

  • View More

Get the full picture and Receive alerts on lawsuits, news articles, publications and more!