LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

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, 2015

Commission file number 1-11437

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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:

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 x    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 x

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 x    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 x    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.  x

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.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨    No x

The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the last sales price of such stock, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, which was June 26, 2015, was approximately $58.2 billion.

There were 305,487,347 shares of our common stock, $1 par value per share, outstanding as of January 29, 2016.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s 2016 Definitive Proxy Statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Form 10-K

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PART I

General

We are a global security and aerospace company principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. We also provide a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistics and information services. We serve both U.S. 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 2015, 78% of our $46.1 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor (including 58% from the Department of Defense (DoD)), 21% were from international customers (including foreign military sales (FMS) contracted through 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 cybersecurity.

We operate in an environment characterized by both increasing complexity in global security and continuing economic pressures in the U.S. and globally. A significant component of our strategy in this environment is to focus on program execution, improving the quality and predictability of the delivery of our products and services, and placing security capability quickly into the hands of our U.S. and international customers at affordable prices. Recognizing that our customers are resource constrained, we are endeavoring to develop and extend our portfolio domestically in a disciplined manner with a focus on adjacent markets close to our core capabilities, as well as growing our international sales. We continue to focus on affordability initiatives. We also expect to continue to invest in technologies to fulfill new mission requirements for our customers and invest in our people so that we have the technical skills necessary to succeed without limiting our ability to return cash to our investors in the form of dividends and share repurchases.

We operate in five business segments: Aeronautics, Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS), Missiles and Fire Control (MFC), Mission Systems and Training (MST) and Space Systems. We organize our business segments based on the nature of the products and services offered.

Strategic Actions

Acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

On November 6, 2015, pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 19, 2015 by and between us and United Technologies Corporation (UTC) and certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of UTC, we completed the acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) for $9.0 billion, net of cash acquired. Sikorsky, a global company primarily engaged in the design, manufacture and support of military and commercial helicopters, has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, aligned under the MST business segment. We funded the acquisition with new debt issuances, commercial paper and cash on hand. We and UTC made a joint election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, which treats the transaction as an asset purchase for tax purposes. This election generates a cash tax benefit with an estimated net present value of $1.9 billion for us and our stockholders. The financial results of the acquired Sikorsky business have been included in our consolidated results of operations from the November 6, 2015 acquisition date through December 31, 2015. Accordingly, the consolidated financial results for the year ended December 31, 2015 do not reflect a full year of Sikorsky operations.

Strategic Review of Government Information Technology (IT) and Technical Services Businesses

Information Systems & Global Solutions Divestiture

On January 26, 2016 we entered into definitive agreements to separate and combine our IS&GS business segment with Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) in a tax-efficient Reverse Morris Trust transaction anticipated to unlock approximately $5.0 billion in estimated enterprise value for our stockholders, including a $1.8 billion one-time special cash payment to us. We intend to use the net proceeds of the transaction to repay debt, pay dividends or repurchase our stock. Additionally, our stockholders will receive approximately 50.5 percent of the outstanding equity of Leidos on a fully diluted basis (approximately 77 million shares) with an estimated value of $3.2 billion based on Leidos’ stock price on the date of announcement. However, the actual value of the stock to be received by our stockholders will depend on the value of such shares at the time of closing of the transaction and our stockholders may receive more or less than the anticipated value. At our election, the distribution may be effected by means of a pro rata dividend in a spin-off transaction or in an exchange offer

3

Table of Contents

for outstanding Lockheed Martin shares in a split-off transaction. The transaction structure, which is subject to market conditions, is currently contemplated to be a split-off transaction resulting in a decrease in our outstanding common shares and a significant book gain at closing. In a split-off transaction, only those stockholders that elect to participate will receive Leidos shares in the merger transaction, provided, that, if the exchange offer is not fully subscribed, Lockheed Martin will spin-off the remaining shares to be converted into Leidos stock in the merger pro rata.

Subsequent to the program realignment described below, our IS&GS business segment represents the government IT and technical services businesses that were under strategic review. The transaction is expected to close in the third or fourth quarter of 2016. Until closing, IS&GS will operate as a business segment and financial results for the IS&GS business segment will be reported in our continuing operations.

Program Realignment

During the fourth quarter of 2015, we realigned certain programs among our business segments in connection with the strategic review of our government IT and technical services businesses. As part of the realignment:

In connection with the realignment, goodwill was reallocated between affected reporting units on a relative fair value basis. We performed goodwill impairment tests prior and subsequent to the realignment, and there was no indication of goodwill impairment.

Subsequent to the program realignment, the government IT and technical services businesses that were under strategic review are now aligned under the IS&GS business segment.

Business Segments

The amounts, discussion and presentation of our business segments as set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect the program realignment described above for all periods presented. The realignment did not impact our consolidated results of operations. See “Note 5 – Information on Business Segments” for additional information including revised historical segment results under our new structure.

Aeronautics

In 2015, our Aeronautics business segment generated net sales of $15.6 billion, which represented 34% of our total consolidated net sales. Aeronautics’ customers include the military services and various other government agencies of the U.S. and other countries. In 2015, U.S. Government customers accounted for 72% and international customers accounted for 28% of Aeronautics’ net sales. Net sales from Aeronautics’ combat aircraft products and services represented 25%, 23%, and 21% of our total consolidated net sales in 2015, 2014, and 2013.

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’ major programs include:

The F-35 program is our largest program, generating 20% of our total consolidated net sales, as well as 59% of Aeronautics’ net sales in 2015. The F-35 program consists of development contracts, multiple production contracts, and

4

Table of Contents

sustainment activities. The development contracts are being performed concurrent with the production contracts. Concurrent performance of development and production contracts is used for complex programs to test aircraft, shorten the time to field systems and achieve overall cost savings. We expect the System Development and Demonstration portion of the development contracts will be substantially complete in 2017, with less significant efforts continuing into 2019. Production of the aircraft is expected to continue for many years given the U.S. Government’s current inventory objective of 2,443 aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy; commitments from our eight international partners and three international customers; as well as expressions of interest from other countries. During 2015, we delivered 45 aircraft to our U.S. and international partners, resulting in total deliveries of 154 production aircraft as of December 31, 2015. We have 114 production aircraft in backlog as of December 31, 2015, including orders from our international partners. 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 produces and provides support and sustainment services for the C-130J Super Hercules, as well as upgrades and support services for the legacy C-130 Hercules worldwide fleet. We delivered 21 C-130J aircraft in 2015, including one to international customers. We have 97 aircraft in our backlog as of December 31, 2015 with advanced funding from customers for additional C-130J aircraft not currently in backlog. Our C-130J backlog extends into 2020.

Aeronautics currently produces F-16 aircraft for international customers. Aeronautics also provides service-life extension, modernization and other upgrade programs for our customers’ F-16 aircraft. We delivered 11 F-16 aircraft in 2015. As of December 31, 2015, we have 20 F-16 aircraft in backlog with backlog extending into 2017.

Aeronautics provides sustainment services for the existing U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy fleet and modernization activities to convert 49 C-5 Galaxy aircraft to the C-5M Super Galaxy configuration. These modernization activities include the installation of new engines, landing gear and systems and other improvements that enable a shorter takeoff, a higher climb rate, an increased cargo load and longer flight range. As of December 31, 2015, we had delivered 29 C-5M aircraft under these modernization activities, including nine C-5M aircraft delivered in 2015. As of December 31, 2015, we have 20 C-5 aircraft in backlog with backlog extending into 2018.

While production and deliveries of F-22 aircraft were completed in 2012, Aeronautics continues to provide modernization and sustainment activities for the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 aircraft fleet. The modernization program comprises upgrading existing systems requirements, developing new systems requirements, adding capabilities and enhancing the performance of the weapon systems. The sustainment program consists of sustaining the weapon systems of the F-22 fleet, providing training systems, customer support, integrated support planning, supply chain management, aircraft modifications and heavy maintenance, systems engineering and support products.

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, also known as Skunk Works^®, is focused on future systems, including unmanned aerial systems and next generation capabilities for advanced strike, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, situational awareness and air mobility. We continue to explore technology advancement and insertion in our existing aircraft. We also are involved in numerous network-enabled activities that allow separate systems to work together to increase effectiveness and we continue to invest in new technologies to maintain and enhance competitiveness in military aircraft design, development and production.

Information Systems & Global Solutions

In 2015, our IS&GS business segment generated net sales of $5.6 billion, which represented 12% of our total consolidated net sales. IS&GS’ customers include various government agencies of the U.S. and other countries, military services, as well as commercial and other customers. In 2015, U.S. Government customers accounted for 89%, international customers accounted for 9% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 2% of IS&GS’ net sales. IS&GS has been impacted by the continued downturn in certain federal agencies’ information technology budgets and increased re-competition on existing contracts coupled with the fragmentation of large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price.

5

Table of Contents

IS&GS provides advanced technology systems and expertise, integrated information technology solutions and management services across a broad spectrum of applications for civil, defense, intelligence and other government customers. In addition, IS&GS supports the needs of customers in data analytics, data center operation and air traffic management. IS&GS provides network-enabled situational awareness and integrates complex global systems to help our customers gather, analyze and securely distribute critical data. While IS&GS has a portfolio of many smaller contracts, as compared to our other business segments, this business segment’s major programs include:

IS&GS’ Technical Services business, which has been realigned to IS&GS from our MFC business segment as part of our strategic review, provides a comprehensive portfolio of technical and sustainment services to enhance our customers’ mission success, with core capabilities in engineering services; global aviation solutions; command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) product support; counter threat services; and education and sustainment services.

Missiles and Fire Control

In 2015, our MFC business segment generated net sales of $6.7 billion, which represented 14% of our total consolidated net sales. MFC’s customers include the military services, principally the U.S. Army, and various government agencies of the U.S. and other countries, as well as commercial and other customers. In 2015, U.S. Government customers accounted for 61%, international customers accounted for 36% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 3% of MFC’s net sales.

MFC provides air and missile defense systems; tactical missiles and air-to-ground precision strike weapon systems; logistics; fire control systems; mission operations support, readiness, engineering support and integration services; manned and unmanned ground vehicles; and energy management solutions. MFC’s major programs include:

Mission Systems and Training

In 2015, our MST business segment generated net sales of $9.1 billion, which represented 20% of our total consolidated net sales. MST’s customers include the military services, principally the U.S. Navy, and various government agencies of the

6

Table of Contents

U.S. and other countries, as well as commercial and other customers. In 2015, U.S. Government customers accounted for 77%, international customers accounted for 22% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 1% of MST’s net sales.

MST provides design, manufacture, service and support for a variety of military and civil helicopters; ship and submarine mission and combat systems; mission systems and sensors for rotary and fixed-wing aircraft; sea and land-based missile defense systems; radar systems; the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS); simulation and training services; and unmanned systems and technologies. In addition, MST supports the needs of customers in cybersecurity and delivers communications and command and control capabilities through complex mission solutions for defense applications.

On November 6, 2015, we acquired Sikorsky and aligned the Sikorsky business under our MST business segment. The results of the acquired Sikorsky business have been included in our financial results from the period subsequent to the completion of the acquisition on November 6, 2015. Accordingly, our consolidated operating results and MST business segment operating results for the year ended December 31, 2015 do not reflect a full year of Sikorsky operations.

Sikorsky is one of the world’s largest helicopter companies and manufactures military and commercial helicopters. Sikorsky designs, manufactures, services and supports military and commercial helicopters. Current major production programs include the UH-60M Black Hawk medium-transport helicopter and HH-60M medical evacuation helicopter for the U.S. and foreign governments, the S-70 Black Hawk for foreign governments, the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. Navy and the MH-60R Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. and foreign navies, the S-70B Seahawk helicopter for foreign naval missions, and the S-76 and S-92 helicopters for commercial operations. Sikorsky is also developing the CH-53K next generation heavy lift helicopter for the U.S. Marine Corps, the VH-92A helicopter for the U.S. Marine One transport mission, and the HH-60W combat rescue helicopter for the U.S. Air Force. Sikorsky is also developing the CH-148 derivative of the H-92 helicopter, a military variant of the S-92 helicopter, for the Canadian Government. Additionally, Sikorsky offers full-spectrum aftermarket service and support solutions to commercial and military customers worldwide. Aftermarket service and support solutions include spare parts sales, mission equipment, modifications and upgrades, overhaul and repair services, maintenance contracts and logistics support programs for helicopters and other aircraft.

MST’s other major programs include:

Space Systems

In 2015, our Space Systems business segment generated net sales of $9.1 billion, which represented 20% of our total consolidated net sales. Space Systems’ customers include various U.S. government agencies and commercial customers. In 2015, U.S. Government customers accounted for 97%, international customers accounted for 2% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 1% of Space Systems’ net sales. Net sales from Space Systems’ satellite products and services represented 11% of our total consolidated net sales in 2015 and 12% in both 2014 and 2013.

Space Systems is engaged in the research and development, design, engineering and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems and space transportation systems. Space Systems provides network-enabled situational awareness and integrates complex global systems to help our customers gather, analyze and securely distribute critical intelligence data. Space Systems is also responsible for various classified systems and services in support of vital national security systems. Space Systems’ major programs include:

7

Table of Contents

Operating profit for our Space Systems business segment includes our share of earnings for our 50% ownership interest in United Launch Alliance (ULA).

Financial and Other Business Segment Information

For additional information regarding our business segments, including comparative segment net sales, operating profit and related financial information for 2015, 2014, and 2013, see “Business Segment Results of Operations” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and “Note 5 – Information on Business Segments” of our consolidated financial statements.

Competition

Our broad portfolio of products and services competes both domestically and internationally against products and services of other large aerospace, defense and information technology companies, as well as numerous smaller competitors, particularly in certain of our services businesses. We often form teams with our competitors in efforts to provide our 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. Additionally, information technology procurements are increasingly focusing on price over other factors of competition. Principal factors of competition include the value of our products and services to the customer; technical and management capability; the ability to develop and implement complex, integrated system architectures; total cost of ownership; our demonstrated ability to execute and perform against contract requirements; and our ability to provide timely solutions.

The competition for international sales is generally subject to U.S. Government stipulations (e.g., export restrictions, market access, technology transfer, industrial cooperation and contracting practices). We may compete against U.S. and non-U.S. companies (or teams) for contract awards by international governments. International competitions also may be subject to different laws or contracting practices of international governments that may affect 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 entered into 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.

Patents

We routinely apply for and own a substantial number of U.S. and international 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 these 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

Certain of our products 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 an acceptable level of the key materials in inventories.

8

Table of Contents

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 composite materials 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 the price and 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 operating 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 Regulations

Our business is heavily regulated. We contract 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, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Veterans Affairs. 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:

The U.S. Government may terminate any of our government contracts and subcontracts either at its convenience or for default based on our performance. If a contract is terminated for convenience, we generally are protected by provisions covering reimbursement for costs incurred on the contract and profit on those costs. If a contract is terminated for default, we generally are entitled to payments for our work that has been accepted by the U.S. Government; however, the U.S. Government could make claims to reduce the contract value or recover its procurement costs and could assess other special penalties. For more information regarding the U.S. Government’s right to terminate our contracts, see Item 1A – Risk Factors. For more information regarding government contracting laws and regulations, see Item 1A – Risk Factors as well as “Critical Accounting Policies – Contract Accounting / Sales Recognition” 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 contracts are included in our consolidated financial statements. The business risks associated with classified contracts historically have not differed materially from those of our other U.S. Government contracts. Our internal controls addressing the financial reporting of classified contracts are consistent with our internal controls for our non-classified contracts.

Our operations are subject to and affected by various federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws and regulations regarding the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise regulating the protection of the environment. While the extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated, the costs of environmental compliance have not had, and we do not expect that these costs will have, a material adverse effect on our earnings, financial position and cash flow, primarily because most of our environmental costs are allowable in establishing

9

Table of Contents

the price of our products and services under our contracts with the U.S. Government. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or cleanup to the extent that they are probable and estimable, see “Critical Accounting Policies – Environmental Matters” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and “Note 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements. See also the discussion of environmental matters within Section 1A – Risk Factors.

Backlog

At December 31, 2015, our backlog was $99.6 billion compared with $80.5 billion at December 31, 2014. Backlog at December 31, 2015 includes $15.6 billion related to Sikorsky and $4.8 billion related to our IS&GS business segment, which we plan to divest in 2016. Sikorsky backlog may change as we complete our acquired backlog analysis. Backlog is converted into sales in future periods as work is performed or deliveries are made. Approximately $43.0 billion, or 43%, of our backlog at December 31, 2015 is expected to be converted into sales in 2016.

Our backlog includes both funded (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 orders under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity agreements in our backlog. If any of our contracts with firm orders were to be terminated, our backlog would be reduced by the expected value of the unfilled orders of such contracts. Our backlog would also be reduced in connection with the planned divestiture of our IS&GS business segment. Funded backlog was $70.7 billion at December 31, 2015, as compared to $56.5 billion at December 31, 2014. For backlog related to each of our business segments, see “Business Segment Results of Operations” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Research and Development

We conduct research and development (R&D) activities under customer-sponsored contracts and with our own independent R&D funds. Our independent R&D costs include basic research, applied research, development, systems and other concept formulation studies. Generally, these costs are allocated among all contracts and programs in progress under U.S. Government contractual arrangements. Costs we incur under customer-sponsored R&D 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 in cost of sales. Independent R&D costs charged to cost of sales were $839 million in 2015, $751 million in 2014, and $697 million in 2013. See “Research and development and similar costs” in “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” of our consolidated financial statements.

Employees

At December 31, 2015, we had approximately 126,000 employees, about 93% of whom were located in the U.S. Approximately 18% of our employees are covered by 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 negotiating renewals to expiring agreements without any material disruption of operating activities. Management considers employee relations to be good.

Available Information

We are a Maryland corporation formed in 1995 by combining the businesses of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta Corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817. Our telephone number is (301) 897-6000 and our website home page is at 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K (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.

Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, proxy statements for our annual stockholders’ meetings and amendments to those reports are available free of charge on our website,

10

Table of Contents

www.lockheedmartin.com/investor, as soon as reasonably practical after we electronically file the material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. In addition, copies of our annual report will be made available, free of charge, upon written request. 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.

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 the federal securities laws and are based on our current expectations and assumptions. The words “believe,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project,” “intend,” “expect,” “plan,” “outlook,” “scheduled,” “forecast” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties.

Statements and assumptions with respect to future sales, income and cash flows, program performance, the outcome of litigation, anticipated pension cost and funding, environmental remediation cost estimates, planned acquisitions or dispositions of assets, or the anticipated consequences are examples of forward-looking statements. Numerous factors, including the risk factors described in the following section, could affect our forward-looking statements and actual performance.

Our actual financial results likely will be different from those projected due to the inherent nature of projections. Given these uncertainties, forward-looking statements should not be relied on in making investment decisions. The forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K speak only as of the date of its filing. Except where required by applicable law, we expressly disclaim a duty to provide updates to forward-looking statements after the date of this Form 10-K to reflect subsequent events, changed circumstances, changes in 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.

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. The outcome of one or more of these risks could have a material effect on our operating results, financial position, or cash flows. You should carefully consider the following factors, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before deciding to purchase our common stock or debt securities.

We depend heavily on contracts with the U.S. Government for a substantial portion of our business.

We derived 78% of our total net sales from the U.S. Government in 2015, including 58% from the Department of Defense (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. Consequently, contracts are often partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. If we incur costs in excess of funds obligated on a contract, we may be at risk for reimbursement of those costs unless and until additional funds are obligated to the contract.

As discussed within the “Industry Considerations” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, the U.S. Government continues to face significant deficit reduction pressures and it is likely that discretionary spending by the U.S. Government will remain constrained for a number of years. Under such conditions, large or complex programs, which consist of multiple contracts and phases, are potentially subject to increased scrutiny. Our largest program, the F-35, represented 20% of our total net sales in 2015 and is expected to represent a higher percentage of our sales in future years. A decision to cut spending or reduce planned orders could have an adverse impact on our results of operations. For more 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.

Based upon our 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. Potential changes in funding priorities may afford new or additional opportunities for our businesses in terms

11

Table of Contents

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.

Generally, we expect that the impact of budget reductions on our operating results will lag in certain of our businesses with longer cycles such as our Aeronautics and Space Systems business segments and in our products businesses within our Missiles and Fire Control (MFC) and Mission Systems and Training (MST) business segments due to our production contract backlog. However, our businesses with smaller, short-term contracts are the most susceptible to the impacts of budget reductions, such as our Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS) business segment. We have also experienced increased market pressures in these services businesses including lower in-theater support as troop levels are drawn down and increased re-competition on existing contracts coupled with the fragmentation of large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price. Additionally, our services businesses across most of our business segments have experienced lower volume due to improved product field performance that require less service support. Changes in our business environment require us to be agile and evolve our business models, processes and products.

We are subject to a number of procurement laws and regulations. Our business and our reputation could be adversely affected if we fail to comply with these laws.

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 impose certain risks and costs on our business. A violation of specific laws and regulations, by us, a supplier or a venture partner, could harm our reputation and result in the imposition of fines and penalties, the termination of our contracts, suspension or debarment from bidding on or being awarded contracts, loss of our ability to export products or services and civil or criminal investigations or proceedings.

In some instances, these laws and regulations impose terms or rights that are different from those typically found in commercial 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 our 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 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 the case of termination for default, the U.S. Government could make claims to reduce the contract value or recover its procurement costs and could assess other special penalties. However, under such circumstances we have rights and remedial actions under laws and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

In addition, certain of our U.S. Government contracts 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. However, the U.S. Government may exercise option periods, even for contracts for which it is expected that our costs may exceed the contract price or ceiling.

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, its cost structure, its business systems and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. Any costs found to be misclassified may be subject to repayment. We have unaudited and/or

12

Table of Contents

unsettled incurred cost claims related to past years, which places risk on our ability to issue final billings on contracts for which authorized and appropriated funds may be expiring.

Certain deficiencies identified during government audits of contractor business systems may result in the government withholding payments on our billings. Such deficiencies have not impacted our internal control over financial reporting. Withholding payments on billings are capped at 5% of billings when deficiencies impact a single business system and 10% when deficiencies impact multiple systems. Such withholdings are typically reduced to 2% after the contractor’s corrective action plan has been accepted and progress to implement the corrective actions has been demonstrated, and withholdings are withdrawn upon satisfactory completion and verification of the corrective action plan.

If an audit or investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including reductions of the value of contracts, contract modifications or terminations, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, penalties, 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.

Our profitability and cash flow may vary based on the mix of our contracts and programs, our performance, our ability to control costs and evolving U.S. Government procurement policies.

Our profitability and cash flow may vary materially depending on the types of government contracts undertaken, the nature of 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 determined, particularly under award and incentive-fee contracts.

Our backlog includes a variety of contract types that are intended to address changing risk and reward profiles as a program matures. Contract types include cost-reimbursable, fixed-price incentive-fee, 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 (LRIP) contracts), 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-fee contracts. Under a fixed-price incentive-fee contract, the allowable costs incurred are eligible for reimbursement but are subject to a cost-share arrangement, which affects profitability. Generally, 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 regardless of 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 or losses 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.

The U.S. Government is currently pursuing and implementing policies that could negatively impact our profitability. Changes in procurement policy favoring more incentive-based fee arrangements, different award fee criteria or government contract negotiation offers that indicate what our costs should be may affect the predictability of our profit rates. Our customers are subject to pressures that may result in a change in contract types referenced above earlier in a program’s maturity than is traditional. An example of this is the use of fixed-price incentive-fee contracts for recent LRIP contracts on the F-35 program while the development contract is being performed concurrently. Our customers also may pursue non-

13

Table of Contents

traditional contract provisions in negotiation of contracts. For example, changes resulting from the F-35 development contract may need to be implemented on the production contracts, a concept referred to as concurrency, which may require us to pay for a portion of the concurrency costs. An example of customer budget pressures includes the U.S. Government requiring that bid and proposal costs be included in general and administrative costs, rather than charged directly to contracts in certain circumstances.

Other policies could negatively impact our working capital and cash flow. For example, the government has expressed a preference for requiring progress payments rather than performance based payments on new fixed-price contracts, which if implemented, delays our ability to recover a significant amount of costs incurred on a contract and thus affects the timing of our cash flows.

Increased competition and bid protests in a budget-constrained environment may make it more difficult to maintain our financial performance and customer relationships.

We are facing increased competition, particularly in information technology at our IS&GS business segment and cybersecurity at our MST business segment, 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, performing certain work internally rather than hiring a contractor, and reducing product development cycles. We have also experienced increased market pressures in our services businesses due to the fragmentation of large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price. It is critical we maintain strong customer relationships and seek to understand the priorities of their requirements in this price competitive environment.

In international sales, we face substantial competition from both U.S. manufacturers and international manufacturers whose governments sometimes provide research and development assistance, marketing subsidies and other assistance for their products. Additionally, our competitors are also focusing on increasing their international sales to partially mitigate the effect of reduced U.S. Government budgets. To remain competitive, we consistently must maintain strong customer relationships and 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.

A substantial portion of our business is awarded through competitive bidding. The U.S. Government increasingly has relied upon competitive contract award types, including indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, 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. In addition, multi-award contracts require that we make sustained efforts to obtain task orders under the contract. The 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 bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards. Unsuccessful bidders are more frequently protesting in the hope of being awarded a subcontract for a portion of the work in return for withdrawing the protest. Bid protests could result in significant expenses to us, contract modifications or even loss of the contract award. Even where a bid protest does not result in the loss of a contract award, the resolution can extend the time until the contract activity can begin and, as a result, delay our recognizing sales. We also may not be successful in our efforts to protest or challenge any bids for contracts that were not awarded to us and we could incur significant time and expense in such efforts.

We are the prime contractor on most of our contracts and if our subcontractors, suppliers or teaming agreement or venture partners fail to perform their obligations, our performance and our ability to win future business could be harmed.

For most of our contracts we rely on other companies to provide materials, major components and products, and to perform a portion of the services that we provide to our customers. Such arrangements may involve subcontracts, teaming arrangements, ventures or supply agreements with other companies upon which we rely (contracting parties). There is a risk that we may have disputes with our contracting parties, 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 the personnel of a subcontractor, teammate or venture partner or vice versa. In addition, changes in the economic environment, including defense budgets and constraints on available financing, may adversely affect the financial stability of our contracting parties and their ability to meet their performance requirements or to provide needed supplies on a timely basis. A failure, for whatever reason, by one or more of our 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 and require that we transition the work to other companies. Contracting party

14

Table of Contents

performance deficiencies may affect our operating results and could result in a customer terminating our contract for default or convenience. A default termination could expose us to liability and affect our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. Additionally, our efforts to increase the efficiency of our operations and improve the affordability of our products and services could negatively impact our ability to attract and retain suppliers.

International sales may pose different risks.

In 2015, 21% of our total net sales were from international customers. We have a strategy to grow international sales over the next several years, inclusive of sales of F-35 aircraft to our international partners and other countries. International sales are subject to numerous political and economic factors, regulatory requirements, significant competition and other risks associated with doing business in foreign countries. Our exposure to such risks increased as a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky and may further increase if our international sales grow as we anticipate.

Our international business is conducted through foreign military sales (FMS) contracted through the U.S. Government or by direct commercial sales (DCS) with international customers. In 2015, approximately 62% of our sales to international customers were FMS and about 38% were DCS. These transaction types differ as FMS transactions represent sales by the U.S. Government to international governments and our contract with the U.S. Government is subject to FAR. By contrast, DCS transactions represent sales directly to another international government or commercial customer. All sales to international customers are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including, without limitation, regulations relating to anti-corruption, import-export control, technology transfer restrictions, taxation, repatriation of earnings, exchange controls, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws, and the anti-boycott provisions of the U.S. Export Administration Act. While we have stringent policies in place to comply with such laws and regulations, failure by us, our employees or others working on our behalf to comply with these laws and regulations could result in administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities, including suspension, debarment from bidding for or performing government contracts, or suspension of our export privileges, which could have a material adverse effect on us. We frequently team with international subcontractors and suppliers who are also exposed to similar risks.

While international sales, whether contracted as FMS or DCS, present risks that are different and potentially greater than those encountered in our U.S. business, DCS with international customers may impose even greater risks. DCS transactions involve commercial relationships with parties with whom we have less familiarity and where there may be significant cultural differences. Additionally, international procurement rules and regulations, contract laws and regulations, and contractual terms differ from those in the U.S. and are less familiar to us. International regulations may be interpreted by foreign courts less bound by precedent and with more discretion; these interpretations frequently have terms less favorable to us than the FAR. Export and import, tax and currency risk also may be increased for DCS with international customers. While these risks are potentially greater than those encountered in our U.S. business, the pricing of our products and services is commensurate with the risk profile on DCS with international customers.

Our international business is highly sensitive to changes in regulations, political environments or security risks that may affect our ability to conduct business outside of the U.S., including those regarding investment, procurement, taxation and repatriation of earnings. Our international business also may be impacted by changes in foreign national priorities, foreign government budgets, global economic conditions, and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Our acquisition of Sikorsky is expected to increase our international sales further exposing us to the risks of international business. Sales of military products are also affected by defense budgets and U.S. foreign policy. Additionally, the timing of orders from our international customers can be less predictable than for our U.S. customers and may lead to fluctuations in the amount reported each year for our international sales.

In conjunction with defense procurements, some international customers require contractors to comply with industrial cooperation regulations, including entering into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements. Offset agreements may require in-country purchases, technology transfers, local manufacturing support, investments in foreign joint ventures and financial support projects as an incentive or as a condition to a contract award. In some countries, these offset agreements may require the establishment of a venture with a local company, which must control the venture. The costs to satisfy our offset obligations are included in the estimates of our total costs to complete the contract and may impact our profitability and cash flows. The ability to recover investments that we make is generally dependent upon the successful operation of ventures that we do not control and may involve products and services that are dissimilar to our business activities. In these and other situations, we could be liable for violations of law for actions taken by these entities such as laws related to anti-corruption, import and export, and anti-boycott restrictions. Offset agreements generally extend over several years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with the offset requirements which are typically subjective and can be outside our control.

15

Table of Contents

Our business could be negatively affected by cyber or other security threats or other disruptions.

We routinely experience cybersecurity threats, threats to our information technology infrastructure, and unauthorized attempts to gain access to our company sensitive information, as do our customers, suppliers, subcontractors and venture partners. We may experience similar security threats at customer sites that we operate and manage as a contractual requirement.

Prior cyberattacks 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 adequate. The threats we face vary from attacks common to most industries to more advanced and persistent, highly organized adversaries who target us because we protect national security information. If we are unable to protect sensitive information, our customers or governmental authorities could question the adequacy of our threat mitigation and detection processes and procedures. Due to the evolving nature of these security threats, the impact of any future incident cannot be predicted.

Although we work cooperatively with our customers, suppliers, subcontractors, venture partners and acquisitions to seek to minimize the impact of cyber threats, other security threats, or business disruptions, we must rely on the safeguards put in place by these entities, which may affect the security of our information. These entities have varying levels of cybersecurity expertise and safeguards, and their relationships with government contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, may increase the likelihood that they are targeted by the same cyber threats we face.

On July 9, 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that the background investigation records of 21.5 million current, former and prospective Federal employees and contractors had been compromised as a result of a cyber-security incident. Many of our current as well as former employees were the subjects of background investigations in connection with former government service or as part of the screening process for a security clearance. We are currently assessing the impact of this cyber-security incident but do not yet know the impact, if any, on Lockheed Martin or our current or former employees.

The costs related to cyber or other security threats or disruptions may not be fully insured or indemnified by other means. Additionally, some cyber technologies we develop under contract for our customers, particularly those related to homeland security, may raise potential liabilities related to intellectual property and civil liberties, including privacy concerns, which 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 our customers, our future financial results, our reputation, or our stock price. Additionally, such events could result in the loss of competitive advantages derived from our research and development efforts or other intellectual property; early obsolescence of our products and services; or contractual penalties.

If we fail to manage acquisitions, divestitures, equity investments and other transactions successfully or if acquired entities or equity investments fail to perform as expected, our financial results, business and future prospects could be harmed.

In pursuing our business strategy, we routinely conduct discussions, evaluate companies, and enter into agreements regarding possible acquisitions, divestitures, 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; integrate acquired companies and employees; and realize anticipated operating synergies efficiently and effectively. Acquisition, divestiture, 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, particularly successor liability under procurement laws and regulations such as the False Claims Act or Truth in Negotiations Act, anti-corruption, tax, import-export and technology transfer laws which provide for civil and criminal penalties and the potential for debarment. We also may incur unanticipated costs or expenses, including post-closing asset impairment charges, expenses associated with eliminating duplicate facilities, employee retention, transaction-related or other litigation, and other liabilities. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Ventures, or non-controlling equity investments, operate under shared control with other parties. Under the equity method of accounting for nonconsolidated ventures and investments, we recognize our share of the operating profit 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 and which face many of the same risks and uncertainties as we do. The most significant impact of our

16

Table of Contents

equity investments is in our Space Systems business segment where approximately 21% of its 2015 operating profit was derived from its share of earnings from equity method investees, particularly that in United Launch Alliance (ULA).

Our ULA investment may be negatively impacted by restrictions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that prevent the award or renewal of contracts after December 29, 2014 for evolved expendable launch vehicle services that utilize a rocket engine designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation such as the RD-180 engine used by the Atlas V launch vehicle. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 lifts these restrictions for fiscal year 2016. Accordingly, Lockheed Martin does not anticipate an impact on the carrying value of its equity investment in ULA in 2016. If restrictions are re-imposed for fiscal year 2016, as some in Congress advocate, or the lifting of the restrictions is not extended to later fiscal years, or if sanctioned individuals are found to be too closely connected to the engine manufacturer, ULA will be challenged to compete effectively for national security launch procurements which could negatively impact ULA and the carrying value of our investment in ULA. ULA continues to evaluate domestic engine alternatives and we will continue to monitor the carrying value of our investment.

The acquired Sikorsky business may underperform relative to our expectations, the transaction may cause our financial results to differ from our expectations or the expectations of the investment community and we may not be able to achieve anticipated cost savings or other anticipated synergies.

On November 6, 2015, we completed the acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) by purchasing all of the issued and outstanding equity of Sikorsky for $9.0 billion, net of cash acquired. We believe that we will benefit from the integration of our products and technologies with those of the Sikorsky business and realize synergies and potential for long-term growth, as well as expanded capabilities and customer relationships as a result of the acquisition. However, the integration process is complex, costly and time-consuming and we may not be able to capture anticipated synergies, tax benefits, cost savings, and business opportunities in the time frame anticipated, or at all. Sikorsky also may not perform as expected, or demand for its products may be adversely affected by global economic conditions, including oil and gas trends that are outside of its control. The acquisition could also cause disruptions in our and Sikorsky’s business, including potential adverse reactions or changes to business relationships and competitive responses. The DoD has expressed concerns regarding greater consolidation in the defense industry at the prime contractor level in the context of our acquisition of Sikorsky and indicated the potential that they will seek to work with Congress to explore additional legal tools and policy to preserve diversity at the prime contract level. Changes in DoD policy or perception of our size could have adverse impacts on our business, including our success in future contract pursuits. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are pursuing a plan to separate and combine our government information technology and technical services businesses with Leidos, Holdings, Inc. in a tax-efficient Reverse Morris Trust transaction. The proposed transaction may not be completed on the currently contemplated timeline or at all and may not achieve the intended benefits.

On January 26, 2016, we entered into definitive agreements to separate and combine our Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS) business segment with Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) in a tax-efficient Reverse Morris Trust transaction. As part of the transaction, we will receive a $1.8 billion one-time special cash payment. The cash payment is subject to adjustment and could be less or more than anticipated due to variances in working capital. Additionally, our stockholders will receive approximately 50.5 percent of the outstanding equity of Leidos on a fully diluted basis (approximately 77 million shares) with an estimated value of $3.2 billion based on Leidos’ stock price on the date of announcement. However, the actual value of the stock to be received by our stockholders will depend on the value of such shares at the time of closing of the transaction and our stockholders may receive more or less than the anticipated value. At our election, the distribution may be effected by means of a pro rata dividend in a spin-off transaction or in an exchange offer for outstanding Lockheed Martin shares in a split-off transaction. The transaction structure, which is subject to market conditions, is currently contemplated to be a split-off transaction resulting in a decrease in our outstanding common shares and a significant book gain at closing. In a split-off transaction, only those stockholders that elect to participate will receive Leidos shares in the merger transaction, provided, that, if the exchange offer is not fully subscribed, Lockheed Martin will spin-off the remaining shares to be converted into Leidos stock in the merger pro rata. The value of the shares of Leidos stock to be received and the value of our stock at the time of the split-off will also impact the number of any shares of our stock retired in the split-off and the amount of any book gain. Although the transaction structure is currently contemplated to be a split-off transaction, there is no assurance that the transaction will be structured as a split-off transaction or that it will result in a reduction in our shares or a gain at closing.

There can be no assurance of the timing of a transaction with Leidos, or whether any such transaction will take place at all. The transaction is subject to closing conditions, including the receipt of approval of Leidos stockholders, regulatory approvals and receipt of opinions of tax counsel, and there can be no assurance that we will receive the required approvals in

17

Table of Contents

a timely manner or at all, or that such approvals will not contain adverse conditions. We also have no assurance that we will be able to realize the intended benefits and tax treatment of the transaction or that the new combined company will perform as expected. The announcement and pendency of the transaction could also cause disruptions in our and Leidos’ business, including potential adverse reactions or changes to business relationships and competitive responses to the transaction. The transaction will also require significant amounts of time and effort which could divert management’s attention from operating and growing our business. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Declines in our sales, earnings and cash flows could also result in future asset impairments (including goodwill). Additionally, the former IS&GS programs we moved to our other business segments and retained could experience increased pricing pressures which could have a negative impact on operating margins and impact our ability to win future renewals.

In addition, as part of the transaction with Leidos, it is contemplated that immediately prior to the transaction, the IS&GS business would enter into third-party financing in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $1.8 billion to finance the $1.8 billion special cash payment and the payment of certain fees and expenses. The IS&GS business (through a subsidiary created for the transaction) has entered into a commitment letter (the “Commitment Letter”) with certain financial institutions to provide this financing through $710 million of Term Loan A facilities and a $1.13 billion Term Loan B facility. Under the terms of the Commitment Letter, if the closing does not occur by July 26, 2016, the lenders (in consultation with us) could require the IS&GS business subsidiary to borrow up to the full amount of the Term Loan B facility in advance of the closing of the transaction (the “Loan Demand”) and deposit the proceeds of such borrowing in escrow to secure such loan, which would increase our total outstanding debt for the period from the date the Loan Demand is exercised until closing of the transaction. If the closing of the transaction were not to occur and our agreement with Leidos was terminated, we would cause the IS&GS business to repay any amounts borrowed and would be entitled to reimbursement for financing costs from Leidos under the term of our agreement with Leidos.

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 products and systems. 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, cybersecurity, 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 or the Price-Anderson Act, 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 otherwise. We endeavor to obtain insurance coverage from established insurance carriers to cover these risks and liabilities. The amount of insurance coverage that we maintain may not be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities. Existing coverage may be cancelled while we remain exposed to the risk, and it is not possible to obtain insurance to protect against all operational risks and liabilities. For example, we are limited in the amount of insurance we can obtain to cover certain natural hazards, such as earthquakes. We have significant operations in geographic areas prone to this risk, such as Sunnyvale, California. Even if insurance coverage is available, we may not be able to obtain it at a price or on terms acceptable to us. Additionally, disputes with insurance carriers over coverage terms or the insolvency of one or more of our insurance carriers may significantly affect the amount or timing of our cash flows.

Substantial costs resulting from an accident; failure of or defect in our products or services; natural catastrophe or other incident; or liability arising from our products and services in excess of any legal protection, 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, failure of, or defect in our products or services, 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.

Pension funding and costs are dependent on several economic assumptions which if changed may cause our future earnings and cash flow to fluctuate significantly as well as affect the affordability of our products and services.

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 U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (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 funding levels as well as changes in several key economic assumptions, including interest rates, rates of return on plan assets, and other actuarial assumptions including participant longevity (also known as mortality), employee turnover, as well as the timing of cash funding. Changes in these

18

Table of Contents

factors, including actual returns on plan assets, may also affect our plan funding, cash flow and stockholders’ equity. In addition, the funding of our plans and recovery of costs on our contracts, as described below, also may be subject to changes caused by legislative or regulatory actions. We have taken certain actions over the last few years to mitigate the volatility the plans may have on our cash flows and earnings, including amendments made in June 2014 to certain of our qualified and nonqualified defined benefit pension plans for non-union employees to freeze future retirement benefits. However, the impact of these actions on our cash flow and earnings may be less than anticipated or may be offset by other factors such as changes in actuarial assumptions and plan asset investment returns.

With regard to cash flow, we have made substantial cash contributions to our plans in excess of the amounts required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). We generally are able to recover these contributions related to our plans as allowable costs on our U.S. Government contracts, including FMS, but there is a lag between when we contribute cash to our plans under pension funding rules and recover it under U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). Effective February 2012, the CAS rules were revised to harmonize the measurement and period assignment of the pension cost allocable to government contracts with the PPA (CAS Harmonization). In 2013, the cost impact of CAS Harmonization started being phased in with the goal of better aligning the CAS pension cost and ERISA funding requirements being fully achieved in 2017. The enactment of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 and Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 increased the interest rate assumption used to determine our CAS pension costs, which has the effect of lowering the recovery of pension contributions during the affected periods as it decreases our CAS pension costs.

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 11 – Postretirement Plans” of our consolidated financial statements.

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, former facilities, and at third-party sites not owned by us where we have been designated a potentially responsible party. In addition, we could be affected by future regulations imposed or claims asserted in response to concerns over climate change, other aspects of the environment or natural resources. We have an ongoing comprehensive sustainability 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 is 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. 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 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements.

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 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

19

Table of Contents

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 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to maintain a qualified workforce.

Due to the specialized nature of our business, our future performance is highly dependent upon our ability to maintain a workforce with the requisite skills in multiple areas including: engineering, science, manufacturing, information technology, cybersecurity, business development and strategy and management. Our operating performance is also dependent upon personnel who hold security clearances and receive substantial training in order to work on certain programs or tasks. Additionally, as we expand our operations internationally, it will be increasingly important to hire and retain personnel with relevant experience in local laws, regulations, customs, traditions and business practices.

We face a number of challenges that may affect personnel retention such as our endeavors to increase the efficiency of our operations and improve the affordability of our products and services such as workforce reductions and consolidating and relocating certain operations. Additionally, our workforce demographic continues to shift toward a higher proportion of employees nearing retirement. In June 2014, we amended certain of our defined benefit pension plans for non-union employees to freeze future retirement benefits, which may encourage retirement-eligible personnel to elect to retire earlier than anticipated.

To the extent that we lose experienced personnel, it is critical that we develop other employees, hire new qualified personnel, and successfully manage the transfer of critical knowledge. Competition for personnel is intense, and we may not be successful in hiring or retaining personnel with the requisite skills or clearances. We increasingly compete with commercial technology companies outside of the aerospace and defense industry for qualified technical, cyber and scientific positions as the number of qualified domestic engineers is decreasing and the number of cyber professionals is not keeping up with demand. To the extent that these companies grow at a faster rate or face fewer cost and product pricing constraints, they may be able to offer more attractive compensation and other benefits to candidates or our existing employees. To the extent that the demand for skilled personnel exceeds supply, we could experience higher labor, recruiting or training costs in order to attract and retain such employees; we could experience difficulty in performing our contracts if we were unable to do so. We also must manage leadership development and succession planning throughout our business. While we have processes in place for management transition and the transfer of knowledge, the loss of key personnel, coupled with an inability to adequately train other personnel, hire new personnel or transfer knowledge, could significantly impact our ability to perform under our contracts.

Approximately 18% of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with various unions. 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 in the future. If we encounter difficulties with renegotiations or renewals of collective bargaining arrangements or are unsuccessful in those efforts, we could incur additional costs and experience work stoppages. Union actions at suppliers can also affect us. Any delays or work stoppages could adversely affect our ability to perform under our contracts, which could negatively impact our results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition.

Our estimates 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. Additionally, we initially allocate the purchase price of acquired businesses based on a preliminary assessment of the fair value of identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The size and breadth of significant acquisitions, such as Sikorsky, necessitate the use of a one year measurement period to adequately analyze and assess a number of factors used in establishing the asset and liability fair values as of the acquisition date and could result in adjustments to asset and liability balances, including changes in fair values of contracts assumed, fixed assets, inventories and deferred revenue and changes in fair values of intangible assets and goodwill, as well as changes to the amortization periods assigned to these assets. Any potential adjustments made could be material in relation to the preliminary purchase price allocations recorded on acquisition dates. Another example is the $13.6 billion of goodwill assets recorded on our Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2015 from previous acquisitions which represent greater than 27% of our total assets. These goodwill assets are subject to annual impairment testing and more frequent testing upon the occurrence of certain

20

Table of Contents

events or significant changes in circumstances that indicate goodwill may be impaired. 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 reporting unit’s related goodwill assets.

Changes in U.S. or foreign tax laws, including those 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, proposals to lower the U.S. corporate income tax rate would require us to reduce our net 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 materially 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” of our consolidated financial statements for a complete discussion of our significant accounting policies and use of estimates.

None.

At December 31, 2015, we owned or leased building space (including offices, manufacturing plants, warehouses, service centers, laboratories and other facilities) at approximately 591 locations primarily in the U.S. Additionally, we manage or occupy various U.S. Government-owned facilities under lease and other arrangements.

At December 31, 2015, we had significant operations in the following locations:

In connection with the acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, we assumed 6.5 million square feet of building space. However, as a result of our ongoing consolidation efforts we reduced our overall floor space by 2.1 million square feet at our previously owned heritage properties in 2015.

The following is a summary of our square feet of floor space by business segment at December 31, 2015 (in millions):

We believe our facilities are in good condition and adequate for their current use. We may improve, replace or reduce facilities as considered appropriate to meet the needs of our operations.

21

Table of Contents

We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. 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 interim reporting period. We cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty. These matters include the proceedings summarized in “Note 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements.

We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign 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 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 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements.

On October 26, 2015, the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) related to a hazardous waste compliance evaluation that NMED conducted at Sandia National Laboratories in April 2015. Sandia Corporation manages Sandia National Laboratories on behalf of the Department of Energy. The NOV sets forth several violations of New Mexico’s Hazardous Waste Regulations generally related to alleged failures to: make hazardous waste determinations, determine if waste meets land disposal standards, prepare proper manifests, properly train personnel, complete inspection forms, maintain inspection records, properly label waste and comply with time-based waste storage limits. Unlawful disposal of waste as a result of the foregoing was also alleged. NMED proposed a civil penalty of approximately $151,000 which Sandia Corporation paid. We do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss related to this matter.

We have reached an agreement to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the qui tam relators two previously disclosed lawsuits in which the DOJ filed complaints in partial intervention on August 28, 2003. The lawsuits, United States ex rel. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., and United States ex rel. John D. Tillson v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., et al., were filed by the relators in 1999 under the civil qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and alleged that we committed violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant by not properly handling, storing and transporting hazardous waste and that we violated the False Claims Act by misleading Department of Energy officials and state regulators about the nature and extent of environmental noncompliance at the plant. The parties are finalizing the terms of the settlement agreement, which is considered a tentative agreement until it is formally approved by the United States Government. Under the terms of our agreement, we will pay $5 million, of which $4 million will be allocated to all Defendants, including the Corporation and its predecessor, Martin Marietta Corporation; wholly-owned subsidiary Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and its predecessor, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.; and wholly-owned subsidiary Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc. and its predecessor Martin Marietta Utility Services, Inc. and the False Claims Act allegations; $500,000 will be allocated to Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and RCRA civil penalties; and $500,000 will be allocated to Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc. and RCRA civil penalties. We believe that we have substantial defenses to all of the allegations and have agreed to settle the case to avoid the costs of further litigation of this matter which has been ongoing in excess of sixteen years. We will admit no liability or wrongdoing in resolving the matter.

As a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to various audits and investigations by the U.S. Government to determine 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, suspension, proposed debarment, debarment from eligibility for future U.S. Government contracting, or suspension of export privileges. Suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on us because of our dependence on contracts with the U.S. Government. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against us. We also provide products and services to customers outside of the U.S., which are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations and foreign procurement policies and practices. Our compliance with local regulations or applicable U.S. Government regulations also may be audited or investigated.

Not applicable.

22

Table of Contents

Our executive officers as of February 24, 2016 are listed below, with their ages on that date, positions and offices currently held, and principal occupation and business experience during at least the last five years. There were no family relationships among any of our executive officers and directors. All officers serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

Richard F. Ambrose (age 57), Executive Vice President – Space Systems

Mr. Ambrose has served as Executive Vice President of Space Systems since April 2013. He previously served as Vice President and Deputy, Space Systems from July 2012 to March 2013; President, Information Systems & Global Solutions –Security from January 2011 to June 2012; and Vice President and General Manager, Space Systems – Surveillance and Navigations Systems from January 2008 to December 2010.

Sondra L. Barbour (age 53), Executive Vice President – Information Systems & Global Solutions

Ms. Barbour has served as Executive Vice President of Information Systems & Global Solutions since April 2013. She previously served as Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer from January 2012 to March 2013, and Vice President and Chief Information Officer from February 2008 to January 2012.

Dale P. Bennett (age 59), Executive Vice President – Mission Systems and Training

Mr. Bennett has served as Executive Vice President of Mission Systems and Training since December 2012. He previously served as President, Mission Systems & Sensors from August 2011 to December 2012; President, Global Training and Logistics from June 2010 to July 2011; and President, Simulation, Training & Support from July 2005 to May 2010.

Orlando P. Carvalho (age 57), Executive Vice President – Aeronautics

Mr. Carvalho has served as Executive Vice President of Aeronautics since March 2013. He previously served as Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 Program from March 2012 to March 2013; Vice President and Deputy, F-35 Program from August 2011 to March 2012; President, Mission Systems & Sensors from January 2010 to July 2011; and Vice President and General Manager, Surface Systems Ballistic Missile Defense Programs from January 2006 to January 2010.

Brian P. Colan (age 55), Vice President, Controller, and Chief Accounting Officer

Mr. Colan has served as Vice President, Controller, and Chief Accounting Officer since August 2014. He previously served as Vice President and Controller, Missiles and Fire Control from January 2013 to August 2014; and Vice President and Controller, Electronic Systems from October 2011 to January 2013. He was previously employed by British Aerospace Systems from January 2005 to September 2011, most recently as Vice President, Finance, Land Armaments Operation Group.

Richard H. Edwards (age 59), Executive Vice President – Missiles and Fire Control

Mr. Edwards has served as Executive Vice President of Missiles and Fire Control since December 2012. He previously served as Executive Vice President, Program and Technology Integration, Missiles and Fire Control from June 2012 to December 2012; and Vice President, Tactical Missiles and Combat Maneuver Systems from July 2005 to June 2012.

Marillyn A. Hewson (age 62), Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Ms. Hewson has served as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin since January 2014. Having served 33 years at Lockheed Martin in roles of increasing responsibility, she held the positions of Chief Executive Officer and President from January 2013 to December 2013; President and Chief Operating Officer from November 2012 to December 2012; Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems from January 2010 to November 2012; and President, Systems Integration – Owego from September 2008 to December 2009.

23

Table of Contents

Maryanne R. Lavan (age 56), 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.

Kenneth R. Possenriede (age 56), Vice President and Treasurer

Mr. Possenriede has served as Vice President and Treasurer since July 2011. He previously served as Vice President, Finance and Business Operations of Electronic Systems from July 2008 to June 2011.

Bruce L. Tanner (age 56), Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Tanner has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since September 2007.

24

Table of Contents

PART II

At January 29, 2016, we had 29,972 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

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, 2010 to the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index and the S&P Aerospace & Defense (S&P Aero) Index.

The S&P Aero Index comprises General Dynamics Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., L3 Communications Holdings Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Precision Cast Parts 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.

This graph is not deemed to be “filed” with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 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.

25

Table of Contents

Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table provides information about our repurchases of our common stock registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the quarter ended December 31, 2015.

26

Table of Contents

27

Table of Contents

Business Overview

We are a global security and aerospace company principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. We also provide a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistics and information services. We serve both U.S. 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 2015, 78% of our $46.1 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor (including 58% from the Department of Defense (DoD)), 21% were from international customers (including foreign military sales (FMS) contracted through 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 cybersecurity.

We operate in five business segments: Aeronautics, Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS), Missiles and Fire Control (MFC), Mission Systems and Training (MST) and Space Systems. We organize our business segments based on the nature of products and services offered.

We operate in an environment characterized by both increasing complexity in global security and continuing economic pressures in the U.S. and globally. A significant component of our strategy in this environment is to focus on program execution, improving the quality and predictability of the delivery of our products and services and placing security capability quickly into the hands of our U.S. and international customers at affordable prices. Recognizing that our customers are resource constrained, we are endeavoring to develop and extend our portfolio domestically in a disciplined manner with a focus on adjacent markets close to our core capabilities, as well as growing our international sales. We continue to focus on affordability initiatives. We also expect to continue to invest in technologies to fulfill new mission requirements for our customers and invest in our people so that we have the technical skills necessary to succeed without limiting our ability to return substantially all of our free cash flow¹ to our investors in the form of dividends and share repurchases over the next two years.

We expect 2016 net sales will increase in the high single digit range from 2015 levels. The projected growth is driven by the addition of Sikorsky and increased volume expected on the F-35 program, offset by volume declines at our IS&GS and Space Systems business segments. We expect our 2016 segment operating profit will decline in the high single digit range from 2015 levels due to an expected decrease in segment operating profit at our IS&GS, MFC and Space Systems business segments. Operating margin is expected to decline due to costs associated with the Sikorsky acquisition, including the impact of purchase accounting adjustments, integration costs and inherited restructuring costs associated with actions committed to by Sikorsky prior to acquisition. Accordingly, we expect 2016 segment operating profit margin will be below 2015 levels, in the 10% range. Our 2016 outlook includes amounts for the government IT infrastructure services and technical services businesses we expect to divest. The 2016 outlook will not be adjusted to exclude these businesses until a divestiture is completed. Our outlook for 2016 assumes the U.S. Government continues to support and fund our key programs, consistent with the government fiscal year (GFY) 2016 budget. Changes in circumstances may require us to revise our assumptions, which could materially change our current estimate of 2016 net sales and operating profit margin. For additional information related to trends in net sales and operating profit at our business segments, see the “Business Segment Results of Operations” section below.

Portfolio Shaping Activities

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 at attractive valuations that will expand or complement our current portfolio and allow access to new customers or technologies. We also may explore the divestiture of businesses that no longer meet our needs or strategy or that could perform better outside of our organization. In pursuing our business strategy, we routinely conduct discussions, evaluate targets and enter into agreements regarding possible acquisitions, divestitures, ventures and equity investments.

¹ We define free cash flow as cash from operations as determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), less capital expenditures as presented on our Statements of Cash Flows.

28

Table of Contents

Strategic Actions

Acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

On November 6, 2015, pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 19, 2015 by and between us and United Technologies Corporation (UTC) and certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of UTC, we completed the acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) for $9.0 billion, net of cash acquired. Sikorsky, a global company primarily engaged in the design, manufacture, service and support of military and commercial helicopters, has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours, aligned under the MST business segment. We funded the acquisition with new debt issuances, commercial paper and cash on hand. We and UTC made a joint election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, which treats the transaction as an asset purchase for tax purposes. This election generates a cash tax benefit with an estimated net present value of $1.9 billion for us and our stockholders. The financial results of the acquired Sikorsky business have been included in our consolidated results of operations from the November 6, 2015 acquisition date through December 31, 2015. Accordingly, the consolidated financial results for the year ended December 31, 2015 do not reflect a full year of Sikorsky operations. See “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” below for a discussion of the debt we incurred in connection with the Sikorsky acquisition.

Strategic Review of Government Information Technology (IT) and Technical Services Businesses

Information Systems & Global Solutions Divestiture

On January 26, 2016 we entered into definitive agreements to separate and combine our Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS) business segment with Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) in a tax-efficient Reverse Morris Trust transaction anticipated to unlock approximately $5.0 billion in estimated enterprise value for our stockholders, including a $1.8 billion one-time special cash payment to us. We intend to use the net proceeds of the transaction to repay debt, pay dividends or repurchase our stock. Additionally, our stockholders will receive approximately 50.5 percent of the outstanding equity of Leidos on a fully diluted basis (approximately 77 million shares) with an estimated value of $3.2 billion based on Leidos’ stock price on the date of announcement. However, the actual value of the stock to be received by our stockholders will depend on the value of such shares at the time of closing of the transaction and our stockholders may receive more or less than the anticipated value. At our election, the distribution may be effected by means of a pro rata dividend in a spin-off transaction or in an exchange offer for outstanding Lockheed Martin Shares in a split-off transaction. The transaction structure, which is subject to market conditions, is currently contemplated to be a split-off transaction resulting in a decrease in our outstanding common shares and a significant book gain at closing. In a split-off transaction, only those stockholders that elect to participate will receive Leidos shares in the merger transaction, provided, that, if the exchange offer is not fully subscribed, Lockheed Martin will spin-off the remaining shares to be converted into Leidos stock in the merger pro rata.

Subsequent to the program realignment described below, our IS&GS business segment represents the government IT and technical services businesses that were under strategic review. The transaction is expected to close in the third or fourth quarter of 2016. Until closing, IS&GS will operate as a business segment and financial results for the IS&GS business segment will be reported in our continuing operations.

Program Realignment

During the fourth quarter of 2015, we realigned certain programs among our business segments in connection with the strategic review of our government IT and technical services businesses. As part of the realignment:

Subsequent to the program realignment, the government IT and technical services businesses that were under strategic review are now aligned under the IS&GS business segment. The program realignment did not impact our consolidated results of operations. The amounts, discussion and presentation of our business segment financial results for all periods presented reflect this realignment.

29

Table of Contents

Other Acquisitions

In addition to the previously described acquisition of Sikorsky in 2015, we had the following significant acquisition related activity in each of the prior two years:

In 2014, we paid $898 million for acquisitions of businesses and investments in affiliates, net of cash acquired, primarily related to the following acquisitions:

In 2013, we paid $269 million for acquisitions of businesses and investments in affiliates, net of cash acquired, primarily related to the acquisition of Amor Group, a United Kingdom-based company specializing in information technology, civil government services and the energy market. Amor Group is included in our IS&GS business segment.

For additional information, see “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” of our consolidated financial statements.

Industry Considerations

U.S. Government Funding Constraints

The U.S. Government, our principal customer, continues to face significant fiscal and economic challenges such as financial deficits, budget uncertainty, increasing debt levels, and an economy with restrained growth. To address these challenges, the U.S. Government continues to focus on discretionary spending, entitlement programs, taxes, and other initiatives to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and reduce the deficit. In doing so, the Administration and Congress must balance decisions regarding defense, homeland security and other federal spending priorities in a constrained fiscal environment largely imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Budget Control Act). The Budget Control Act established limits on discretionary spending, which provided for reductions to planned defense spending of $487 billion over a 10 year period that began with GFY 2012 (a U.S. Government fiscal year starts on October 1 and ends on September 30). The Budget Control Act also provided for additional automatic spending reductions, known as sequestration, which went into effect on March 1, 2013, that would have reduced planned defense spending by an additional $500 billion over a nine-year period that began in GFY 2013.

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA 2015). BBA 2015 raises the limit on the government’s debt until March 2017 and raises the sequester caps imposed by the Budget Control Act by $80 billion, split equally between defense and non-defense spending over the next two years ($50 billion in GFY 2016 and $30 billion in GFY 2017). On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, funding the government through September 30, 2016 and on February 9, 2016, the President submitted a budget proposal for GFY 2017, consistent with BBA 2015 funding levels. BBA 2015 includes discretionary funding for DoD of approximately $580 billion in GFY 2016 and $583 billion in GFY 2017. This funding includes a base budget for the DoD of approximately $521 billion in GFY 2016 and $524 billion in GFY 2017. BBA 2015 also provides approximately $59 billion for DoD Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) spending in each of GFY 2016 and GFY 2017.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA 2013) passed by Congress in December 2013 alleviated some budget cuts that would have otherwise been instituted through sequestration in GFY 2014 and GFY 2015. Together, BBA 2013 and BBA 2015 (collectively, the Bipartisan Budget Acts) increased discretionary spending limits through GFY 2017. However, the Bipartisan Budget Acts retained sequestration cuts for GFYs 2018 through 2021, including the across-the-board spending reduction methodology provided for in the Budget Control Act. As a result, there remains uncertainty regarding how, or if, sequestration cuts will be applied in GFY 2018 and beyond. DoD and other agencies may have significantly less flexibility in how to apply budget cuts in future years. While the defense budget sustained the largest single reductions under the Budget Control Act, other civil agencies and programs have also been impacted by significant spending reductions. In light of the Budget Control Act and deficit reduction pressures, it is likely that discretionary spending by the U.S. Government will remain constrained for a number of years. Additionally, if an annual appropriations bill is not enacted for GFY 2017 or beyond, the U.S. Government may operate under a continuing resolution, restricting new contract or program starts and

30

Table of Contents

government shutdowns could arise. We anticipate there will continue to be significant debate within the U.S. Government over defense spending throughout the budget appropriations process for GFY 2017 and beyond. The outcome of these debates could have long-term consequences for our industry and company as described below. However, we continue to believe that our portfolio of products and services will continue to be well supported in a strategically focused allocation of budget resources.

Potential Impacts of Budget Reductions

While recent budget actions provide a more measured and strategic approach to addressing the U.S. Government’s fiscal challenges, sequestration remains a long-term concern. If not further modified, sequestration could have significant negative impacts on our industry and company in future periods. There may be disruption of ongoing programs, impacts to our supply chain, contractual actions (including partial or complete terminations), potential facilities closures, and thousands of personnel reductions across the industry that will severely impact advanced manufacturing operations and engineering expertise, and accelerate the loss of skills and knowledge. Sequestration, or other budgetary cuts in lieu of sequestration, could have a material negative effect on our company.

Despite the continued uncertainty surrounding U.S. Government budgets, we have sought to align our businesses with what we believe are the most critical national priorities and mission areas. Additionally, we are seeking to lessen our dependence on contracts with the U.S. Government by focusing on expanding into adjacent markets close to our core capabilities and growing international sales but we may not be successful in this strategy. The possibility remains, however, that our programs could be materially reduced, extended, or terminated as a result of the U.S. Government’s continuing assessment of priorities, changes in government priorities, or budget reductions, including sequestration (particularly in those circumstances where sequestration is implemented across-the-board without regard to national priorities). Additionally, decreases in production volume associated with budget cuts, including sequestration, will increase unit costs making our products less affordable for both our U.S. and international customers. In particular, if sequestration level spending cuts are reinstated in GFY 2018, we may experience significant rescheduling or termination activity with our supplier base. Such activity could result in claims from our suppliers, which may include the amount established in any settlement agreements, the costs of evaluating the supplier settlement proposals, and the costs of negotiating settlement agreements. Budget cuts, including sequestration, could result in restructuring charges, impairment of assets, including goodwill, or other charges. We expect costs associated with claims from our suppliers and restructuring charges will be recovered from our customers.

Generally, we expect that the impact of budget reductions on our operating results will lag in certain of our businesses with longer cycles such as our Aeronautics and Space Systems business segments, and our products businesses within our MFC and MST business segments, due to our production contract backlog. However, our businesses with smaller, short-term contracts are the most susceptible to the impacts of budget reductions, such as our IS&GS business segment. We have also experienced increased market pressures in these services businesses including lower in-theater support as troop levels are drawn down and increased re-competition on existing contracts coupled with the fragmentation of large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price. Additionally, our services businesses across most of our business segments have experienced lower volume due to improved product field performance that require less service support.

International Business

A key component of our strategic plan is to grow our international sales. To accomplish this growth, we continue to focus on expanding our in-country presence and strengthening our relationships internationally through partnerships and local production joint technology offices. Since 2013, we have acquired Amor Group, a United Kingdom-based company, and we have opened new in-country offices including in Israel, United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Qatar that will enable development of ventures to create products and enhance our offerings in technology, aerospace and security sectors. We conduct business with international customers primarily through our Aeronautics, MFC and MST business segments.

In our Aeronautics business segment, there remains strong international interest in the F-35 program. The F-35 program includes commitments from eight international partner countries and three international customers; as well as expressions of interest from other countries. The U.S. Government and the eight partner countries continue to work together on the design, testing, production and sustainment of the F-35. The international role on the program continues to grow as we have successfully delivered aircraft to five international partners, including the first two Norwegian aircraft. In 2015, the first Italian Final Assembly and Check-Out Facility produced F-35 aircraft was delivered. The award of the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 9 undefinitized contract action in 2015 included 21 international orders for four international partners and customers.

31

Table of Contents

Other areas of international expansion at our Aeronautics business segment include the F-16 and C-130J programs. In 2015, the Iraqi F-16 contract was definitized and production continues into 2017. Also, the award from Singapore in 2015 for F-16 aircraft upgrades establishes work into 2023. The C-130J Super Hercules aircraft continued to draw interest from various international customers in 2015.

Our MFC business segment produces the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) air and missile defense systems, which continue to generate significant international interest. The PAC-3 is an advanced missile defense system designed to intercept incoming airborne threats. During 2015 we received orders for PAC-3 systems from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and South Korea, in addition to the award we received in 2014 to provide PAC-3 missile defense equipment to Qatar. THAAD international customers include the UAE. Other international customers include Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Taiwan and Kuwait. Other countries in the Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region have also expressed interest in our air and missile defense systems. Additionally, we continue to see international demand for our tactical missile and fire control products.

In our MST business segment, we continue to experience international interest in the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. We perform activities in the development, production, ship integration and test and lifetime support for ships of international customers such as Japan, Spain, Korea and Australia. We have an ongoing program in Canada for combat systems equipment upgrades on 13 Halifax-class frigates. In our training and logistics solutions portfolio, we have active programs and pursuits in United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Singapore, Qatar, and Australia.

Our acquisition of Sikorsky adds a significant international component to the MST business segment with an installed base of over 1,000 aircraft internationally. We have active development, production, and sustainment support of the UH-60 Black Hawk and MH-60 Seahawk aircraft to foreign military customers, including Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia. The S-76 and S-92 aircraft is sold to commercial customers in the oil and gas industry, emergency medical evacuation, and search and rescue fleets in over 30 countries, including customers and end-users in China, Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United Kingdom.

Status of the F-35 Program

The F-35 program consists of a development contracts, multiple production contracts and sustainment activities. The development contracts are being performed concurrent with the production contracts. Concurrent performance of development and production contracts is used for complex programs to test aircraft, shorten the time to field systems, and achieve overall cost savings. We expect the System Development and Demonstration portion of the development contracts will be substantially complete in 2017, with less significant efforts continuing into 2019. Production of the aircraft is expected to continue for many years given the U.S. Government’s current inventory objective of 2,443 aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy; commitments from our eight international partners and three international customers; as well as expressions of interest from other countries.

The U.S. Government continues to complete various operational tests, including ship trials, mission system evaluations, and weapons testing, with the F-35 aircraft fleet recently surpassing 50,000 flight hours. Progress continues to be made on the production of aircraft. In July 2015, the U.S. Marine Corps declared that the F-35B had reached initial operating capability, which makes it the first variant available for combat. As of December 31, 2015, we have delivered 154 production aircraft to our U.S. and international partners including delivery of the first Italian Final Assembly and Check-Out Facility produced F-35, and have 114 production aircraft in backlog, including orders from our international partners.

Given the size and complexity of the F-35 program, we anticipate that there will be continual reviews related to aircraft performance, 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, supplier and partner performance, software development, level of cost associated with life cycle operations and sustainment and warranties, receiving funding for production contracts on a timely basis, executing future flight tests, findings resulting from testing, and operating the aircraft.

Cybersecurity

On July 9, 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced that the background investigation records of 21.5 million current, former and prospective Federal employees and contractors had been compromised as a result of a cyber-security incident. Many of our current as well as former employees were the subjects of background investigations in

32

Table of Contents

connection with former government service or as part of the screening process for a security clearance. We are currently assessing the impact of this cyber-security incident but do not yet know the impact, if any, on Lockheed Martin or our current or former employees.

Consolidated Results of Operations

Since our operating cycle is primarily long term and involves many types of contracts for the design, development and manufacture of products and related activities with varying delivery schedules, the results of operations of a particular year, or year-to-year comparisons of sales and profits, may not be indicative of future operating results. The following discussions of comparative results among years should be reviewed in this context. All per share amounts cited in these discussions are presented on a “per diluted share” basis, unless otherwise noted. Our consolidated results of operations were as follows (in millions, except per share data):

Certain amounts reported in other income, net, primarily our share of earnings or losses from equity method investees, are included in the operating profit of our business segments. Accordingly, such amounts are included in our discussion of our business segment results of operations.

Net Sales

We generate sales from the delivery of products and services to our customers. Product sales are predominantly generated in our Aeronautics, MFC, MST and Space Systems business segments and most of our service sales are generated in our IS&GS and MST business segments. Our consolidated net sales were as follows (in millions):

Substantially all of our contracts are accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method. Under the percentage-of-completion 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 subsequent discussion of changes in our consolidated cost of sales and our business segment results of operations because changes in our sales are typically accompanied by a corresponding change in our cost of sales due to the nature of the percentage-of-completion method.

33

Table of Contents

Product Sales

Our product sales represent 78% of our total sales in 2015 and 79% of our total sales in 2014. Product sales decreased $211 million, or 1%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. Lower product sales of about $290 million at Space Systems, approximately $250 million at MFC and approximately $110 million at IS&GS were offset by higher product sales of about $320 million at MST and approximately $120 million at Aeronautics. The decrease in product sales at Space Systems was attributable to lower volume for government satellite programs (primarily Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF). Product sales at MFC decreased due to lower volume on air and missile defense systems programs (primarily PAC-3). The decline in product sales at IS&GS was a result of key program completions, lower customer funding levels and increased competition, coupled with the fragmentation of existing large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price. The increase in product sales at MST was primarily attributable to product sales from Sikorsky, which we acquired in the fourth quarter of 2015. Product sales at Aeronautics increased primarily due to higher volume on F-35 production contracts, as well as increased deliveries on our C-5 program; partially offset by fewer aircraft deliveries for our C-130 and F-16 programs and lower sustainment activities on our F-22 program.

Our product sales represent 79% of our total sales in both 2014 and 2013. Product sales increased $402 million, or 1%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. Higher product sales of about $815 million at Aeronautics and approximately $280 million at MFC were partially offset by lower product sales of about $275 million at Space Systems, approximately $235 million at IS&GS and approximately $185 million at MST. The increase in product sales at Aeronautics was attributable to higher volume on F-35 production contracts and sustainment activities, increased aircraft deliveries (F-16 program) and increased risk retirements (F-22 program). Product sales at MFC increased as a result of increased volume on air and missile defense systems programs (primarily THAAD), and increased deliveries on fire control programs (including the Apache Fire Control System (Apache)). The decline in product sales at Space Systems was due to lower volume for government satellite programs (primarily Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF), Global Positioning System III (GPS-III), and Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)); and as a result of mission solutions’ programs transitioning from development to operations and support, wind-down or completion of certain programs, and defense budget cuts. The decline in product sales at Space Systems was partially offset by increased volume in the Orion program (primarily the first unmanned test flight of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)). Lower product sales at IS&GS were primarily due to the wind down or completion of certain programs and decreased volume in technical services programs reflecting market pressures. Lower product sales at MST were primarily driven by the wind-down or completion of certain command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) programs (primarily PTDS).

Service Sales

Our service sales represent 22% of our total sales in 2015 and 21% of our total sales in 2014. Service sales increased $743 million, or 8%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. The increase in service sales was primarily attributable to higher service sales of approximately $530 million at Aeronautics and about $190 million at Space Systems. Higher service sales at Aeronautics were primarily due to increased sustainment activities (primarily F-35). The increase in service sales at Space Systems was primarily due to service sales of entities acquired in the third quarter of 2014.

Our service sales represent 21% of our total sales in both 2014 and 2013. Service sales decreased $160 million, or 2%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. Lower service sales of approximately $225 million at IS&GS and approximately $120 million at MST were partially offset by higher service sales at Space Systems of about $190 million. The decline in service sales at IS&GS was primarily due to various technical services programs as a result of decreased volume reflecting market pressures. The decline in service sales at MST was primarily due to the wind-down or completion of certain programs. The increase in sales at Space Systems was primarily due to commercial space transportation programs resulting from launch-related activities.

34

Table of Contents

Cost of Sales

Cost of sales, for both products and services, consist of materials, labor, subcontracting costs, an allocation of indirect costs (overhead and general and administrative), as well as the costs to fulfill our industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, required under certain contracts with international customers. For each of our contracts, we monitor the nature and amount of costs at the contract level, which form the basis for estimating our total costs to complete the contract. Our consolidated cost of sales were as follows (in millions):

Due to the nature of percentage-of-completion accounting, changes in our cost of sales for both products and services are typically accompanied by changes in our net sales. The following discussion of material changes in our consolidated cost of sales for products and services should be read in tandem with the preceding discussion of changes in our consolidated net sales and our business segment results of operations. We have not identified any developing trends in cost of sales for products and services that would have a material impact on our future operations.

Product Costs

Product costs increased approximately $41 million, or less than 1%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. Increased product costs of approximately $445 million at MST and about $180 million at Aeronautics, were offset by decreases in product costs of approximately $325 million at Space Systems, $195 million at MFC and $65 million at IS&GS. Increases in product costs at MST were due primarily to the Sikorsky acquisition, including costs of Sikorsky products, intangible amortization and adjustments required to account for the acquisition in the fourth quarter of 2015. Higher product costs at Aeronautics were attributable to the reasons stated above for higher product sales, as well as decreased risk retirements (primarily F-22). The changes in product costs at Space Systems, MFC and IS&GS were attributable to the reasons stated above for higher product sales.

Product costs increased $619 million, or 2%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. Product costs increased approximately $815 million at Aeronautics and approximately $325 million at MFC. Increases in product costs at Aeronautics and MFC were primarily due to the reasons described above for higher product sales at each respective business segment and net warranty reserve adjustments recorded in 2014 at MFC (including Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), and Guided Multiple Launcher Rocker Systems (GMLRS)). These increases in product costs were partially offset by decreases of about $195 million at IS&GS, $255 million at Space Systems and $70 million at MST, primarily due to the reasons described above for lower product sales at each respective business segment. Additionally, lower product costs at MST were partially offset by costs related to the settlements of contract cost matters on certain programs in the prior year (including a portion of the terminated presidential helicopter program) that were not repeated in 2014 and higher reserves recorded on certain training and logistics solutions programs during 2014. The 0.8% increase in product costs as a percentage of product sales in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to the reasons described above for increasing product costs at MFC, and decreased risk retirements at Aeronautics (primarily F-16).

Service Costs

Service costs increased $618 million, or 7%, in 2015 compared to 2014. Higher service costs of approximately $450 million at Aeronautics and about $230 million at Space Systems were due to the reasons stated above for higher service sales. These increases in service costs were partially offset by a decrease in service costs of about $80 million at MFC due primarily to lower service costs on various air and missile defense programs.

Service costs decreased $195 million, or 2%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. Lower service costs of about $230 million at IS&GS, approximately $100 million at MST, and approximately $40 million at Aeronautics were partially offset by an increase in service costs of approximately $160 million at Space Systems. The decline at IS&GS was primarily attributable to

35

Table of Contents

lower volume for various technical services programs. The decline at MST was primarily attributable to lower costs upon wind-down or completion of certain programs. The decline at Aeronautics was mostly attributable to decreased sustainment activities. The increase at Space Systems was primarily attributable to commercial space transportation programs due to launch-related activities. The 0.5% decrease in service costs as a percentage of service sales in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to items decreasing service costs at IS&GS.

Goodwill Impairment Charges

In the fourth quarter of 2015, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test for each of our reporting units. Additionally, as part of our previously described program realignment, goodwill was re-allocated between affected reporting units on a relative fair value basis and goodwill impairment tests were performed prior and subsequent to the realignment. In connection with our goodwill impairment testing in 2015, we determined there was no goodwill impairment.

In the fourth quarters of 2014 and 2013, we recorded non-cash goodwill impairment charges of $119 million and $195 million, which reduced our net earnings by $107 million ($.33 per share) and $176 million ($.54 per share). For additional information, see the “Critical Accounting Policies – Goodwill” section below and “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” of our consolidated financial statements.

Restructuring Charges

2015 Actions

During 2015, we recorded charges related to certain severance actions totaling $102 million, of which $67 million related to our MST business segment and $35 million related to our IS&GS business segment (prior to realignment). These charges reduced our 2015 net earnings by $66 million ($.21 per share). These severance actions resulted from a review of future workload projections and to reduce our costs in order to improve the affordability of our products and services. The charges consisted of severance costs associated with the planned elimination of certain positions through either voluntary or involuntary actions. Upon separation, terminated employees will receive lump-sum severance payments primarily based on years of service, the majority of which are expected to be paid over the next several quarters. As of December 31, 2015, we have paid approximately $18 million in severance payments associated with these actions.

In connection with the Sikorsky acquisition, we assumed obligations related to certain restructuring actions committed to by Sikorsky in June 2015. These actions included a global workforce reduction of approximately 1,400 production-related positions and facilities consolidations. As of December 31, 2015, accrued restructuring costs associated with these actions are approximately $15 million, all of which are expected to be paid in 2016. Net of amounts we anticipate to recover through the pricing of our products and services to our customers, we also expect to incur an additional $40 million of costs in 2016 related to these actions.

2013 Actions

During 2013, we recorded charges related to certain severance actions totaling $201 million, of which $83 million, $37 million and $81 million related to our IS&GS, MST and Space Systems business segments (prior to realignment). These charges reduced our 2013 net earnings by $130 million ($.40 per share) and primarily related to a plan we committed to in November 2013 to close and consolidate certain facilities and reduce our total workforce by approximately 4,000 positions. These charges also include $30 million related to certain severance actions that occurred in the first quarter of 2013, which were subsequently paid in 2013.

The November 2013 plan resulted from a strategic review of these businesses’ facility capacity and future workload projections. Upon separation, terminated employees receive lump-sum severance payments primarily based on years of service. As of December 31, 2015, we have paid approximately $153 million in severance payments associated with this action, of which approximately $46 million, $92 million and $15 million was paid in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The remaining severance payments are expected to be paid in 2016.

We also expect to incur total accelerated costs (e.g., accelerated depreciation expense related to long-lived assets at sites closed) and incremental costs (e.g., relocation of equipment and other employee related costs) of approximately $10 million, $50 million and $180 million at our IS&GS, MST and Space Systems business segments through the completion of this plan in 2016. As of December 31, 2015, we have incurred total accelerated and incremental costs of approximately $225 million, of which approximately $115 million, $90 million and $20 million was recorded in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The accelerated and incremental costs are recorded as incurred in cost of sales on our Statements of Earnings and included in the respective business segment’s results of operations.

36

Table of Contents

We expect to recover a substantial amount of the restructuring charges through the pricing of our products and services to the U.S. Government and other customers, with the impact included in the respective business segment’s results of operations. Of the total severance, accelerated and incremental costs mentioned above, we recovered approximately $65 million in 2015 and $50 million in 2014 and expect to recover approximately $60 million in 2016.

Other Unallocated, Net

Other unallocated, net primarily includes the FAS/CAS pension adjustment as described in the Business Segment Results of Operations section below, stock-based compensation and other corporate costs. These items are not allocated to the business segments and, therefore, are excluded from the cost of sales for products and services. Other unallocated, net was $187 million of income in 2015, $132 million of income in 2014 and $841 million of expense in 2013.

The fluctuation between each respective period was primarily attributable to the change in the FAS/CAS pension adjustment to income of $471 million in 2015 and $376 million in 2014, compared to expense of $482 million in 2013, partially offset by fluctuations in other costs associated with various corporate items, none of which were individually significant. The changes in the FAS/CAS pension adjustment between the periods were attributable to various items impacting the calculations of financial accounting standards (FAS) pension expense and U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) pension cost. FAS pension expense in 2015 and 2014 was less than 2013 primarily due to the June 2014 plan amendments to certain of our defined benefit pension plans to freeze future retirement benefits, partially offset by the impact of using new longevity (also known as mortality) assumptions (Note 11). The higher CAS pension cost in 2015 and 2014 compared to 2013 primarily reflects the impact of phasing in CAS Harmonization. See “Critical Accounting Policies – Postretirement Benefit Plans” for more discussion of our CAS pension cost.

Other Income, Net

Other income, net primarily includes our share of earnings or losses from equity method investees and other various items. Other income, net in 2015 was $236 million, compared to $337 million in 2014 and $318 million in 2013. The decrease in 2015, compared to 2014, was primarily due to a $90 million non-cash impairment charge related to our decision to divest Lockheed Martin Commercial Flight Training (LMCFT) in 2016 and non-recoverable transaction costs of approximately $45 million associated with the Sikorsky acquisition and the strategic review of our government IT and technical services businesses, partially offset by fluctuations in other various costs, none of which were individually significant. The asset impairment charge was partially offset by a net deferred tax benefit related to LMCFT of about $80 million, which is recorded in income tax expense. Earnings from equity method investees in 2015 were comparable to 2014 (reflecting decreased earnings from equity method investees in our Space Systems business segment, offset by increased earnings form Sikorsky equity method investees). The increase in 2014, compared to 2013, was primarily due to fluctuations in earnings from equity method investees in our Aeronautics and Space Systems business segments, as discussed in the “Business Segment Results of Operations” section below.

Interest Expense

Interest expense in 2015 was $443 million, compared to $340 million in 2014 and $350 million in 2013. The increase in interest expense in 2015 relates to debt we incurred to fund the acquisition of Sikorsky, and the issuance of notes in February of 2015 for general corporate purposes. See “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” for a discussion of our debt.

Other Non-Operating Income, Net

Other non-operating income, net increased $24 million from 2014 to 2015 primarily due to a gain from the sale of an investment in 2015. Other non-operating income, net in 2014 was comparable to 2013.

Income Tax Expense

Our effective income tax rate from continuing operations was 28.2% for 2015, 31.3% for 2014, and 29.0% for 2013. The rates for all periods benefited from tax deductions for U.S. manufacturing activities, deductions for dividends paid to our defined contribution plans with an employee stock ownership plan feature and the retroactive reinstatement of the U.S. research and development (R&D) tax credit. These benefits were partially offset by the unfavorable impacts of the non-cash goodwill impairment charges in 2014 and 2013. The U.S. manufacturing deduction benefit for 2015, 2014 and 2013 reduced our effective tax rate by approximately two percentage points.

37

Table of Contents

In 2015, the R&D tax credit was permanently extended and reinstated, retroactive to the beginning of 2015, which reduced our effective income tax rate by 1.4 percentage points. In 2014, the R&D tax credit was temporarily reinstated for one year, retroactive to the beginning of 2014, which reduced our effective tax rate by 0.9 percentage point. In 2013, the R&D tax credit was temporarily reinstated for two years, retroactive to the beginning of 2012. As a result, the effective income tax rate for 2013 reflects the credit for all of 2013 and 2012, which reduced our effective tax rate by 1.8 percentage points.

As a result of electing to treat the acquisition of the stock of Sikorsky as an asset acquisition under section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, we expect tax deductions for the amortization of intangibles and goodwill over 15 years to reduce our tax payments by a net present value of approximately $1.9 billion.

As a result of a decision in 2015 to divest LMCFT in 2016, we recorded an asset impairment charge of approximately $90 million. This charge was partially offset by a net deferred tax benefit of about $80 million. The net impact of the resulting tax benefit reduced the effective income tax rate by 1.0 percentage point in 2015.

A limited amount of the non-cash goodwill impairment charges will be deductible for tax purposes. Accordingly, the non-cash goodwill impairment charges increased our effective income tax rates by 0.6 percentage point for 2014 and 1.2 percentage points for 2013 (Note 1).

Future changes in tax law could significantly impact our provision for income taxes, the amount of taxes payable, and our deferred tax asset and liability balances. Recent proposals to lower the U.S. corporate income tax rate would require us to reduce our net deferred tax assets upon enactment of new tax legislation, with a corresponding material, one-time, non-cash increase in income tax expense, but our income tax expense and payments would be materially reduced in subsequent years. Our net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 were $5.9 billion and $5.5 billion, based on a 35% Federal statutory income tax rate, and primarily relate to our postretirement benefit plans. If legislation reducing the Federal statutory income tax rate to 25% had been enacted at December 31, 2015, our net deferred tax assets would have been reduced by $1.7 billion and we would have recorded a corresponding one-time, non-cash increase in income tax expense of $1.7 billion. This additional expense would be less if the legislation phased in the tax rate reduction or if the final rate was higher than 25%. The amount of net deferred tax assets will change periodically based on several factors, including the measurement of our postretirement benefit plan obligations and actual cash contributions to our postretirement benefit plans.

Net Earnings from Continuing Operations

We reported net earnings from continuing operations of $3.6 billion ($11.46 per share) in 2015, $3.6 billion ($11.21 per share) in 2014 and $3.0 billion ($9.04 per share) in 2013. Both net earnings and earnings per share from continuing operations were affected by the factors mentioned above. Earnings per share also benefited from a net decrease of approximately eleven million common shares outstanding from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015 and approximately five million common shares outstanding from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014 as a result of share repurchases, which were partially offset by share issuance under our stock-based awards and certain defined contribution plans.

Net Earnings from Discontinued Operations

Net earnings from discontinued operations for 2013 include a benefit of $31 million resulting from the resolution of certain tax matters related to a business sold prior to 2013.

38

Table of Contents

Business Segment Results of Operations

We operate in five business segments: Aeronautics, IS&GS, MFC, MST and Space Systems. We organize our business segments based on the nature of products and services offered. Net sales of our business segments exclude intersegment sales as these activities are eliminated in consolidation. The amounts, discussion and presentation of our business segments as set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect the program realignment described above for all periods presented and include the results of the acquired Sikorsky business from the November 6, 2015 acquisition date through December 31, 2015.

Operating profit of our business segments includes our share of earnings or losses from equity method investees because the operating activities of the equity method investees are closely aligned with the operations of our business segments. United Launch Alliance (ULA), which is part of our Space Systems business segment, is our primary equity method investee. Operating profit of our business segments excludes the FAS/CAS pension adjustment described below; expense for stock-based compensation; the effects of items not considered part of management’s evaluation of segment operating performance, such as charges related to goodwill impairments (Note 1) and significant severance actions (Note 15); gains or losses from divestitures (Note 3); the effects of certain legal settlements; corporate costs not allocated to our business segments; and other miscellaneous corporate activities. These items are included in the reconciling item “Unallocated items” between operating profit from our business segments and our consolidated operating profit.

Our business segments’ results of operations include pension expense only as calculated under U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards, which we refer to as CAS pension cost. We recover CAS pension cost through the pricing of our products and services on U.S. Government contracts and, therefore, the CAS pension cost is recognized in each of our business segments’ net sales and cost of sales. Since our consolidated financial statements must present pension expense calculated in accordance with FAS requirements under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), which we refer to as FAS pension expense, the FAS/CAS pension adjustment increases or decreases the CAS pension cost recorded in our business segments’ results of operations to equal the FAS pension expense. As a result, to the extent that CAS pension cost exceeds FAS pension expense, which occurred for 2015 and 2014, we have FAS/CAS pension income and, conversely, to the extent FAS pension expense exceeds CAS pension cost, which occurred for 2013, we have FAS/CAS pension expense.

39

Table of Contents

The operating results in the following tables exclude businesses included in discontinued operations (Note 13) for all years presented. Summary operating results for each of our business segments were as follows (in millions):

40

Table of Contents

The following tables reflect the impacts of our program realignment on net sales and operating profit for each of our business segments (in millions):

41

Table of Contents

The following segment discussions also include information relating to backlog for each segment. Backlog was approximately $99.6 billion, $80.5 billion and $82.6 billion at December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. Backlog at December 31, 2015 includes approximately $15.6 billion of Sikorsky backlog and $4.8 billion of backlog related to our IS&GS business segment, which we plan to divest in 2016. These amounts included both funded backlog (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). Backlog does not include unexercised options or task orders to be issued under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts. Funded backlog was approximately $70.7 billion at December 31, 2015.

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 throughout the 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 a customer for a product would typically align to the subcomponents of that product (such as a wing-box on an aircraft) and for services would align to 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 are bid and negotiated with our customers under circumstances in which we are required to disclose our estimated total 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.

Many of our contracts 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 cost 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 (e.g., a newly-developed product versus a mature product), the schedule and associated tasks (e.g., the number and type of milestone events) and costs (e.g., material, labor, subcontractor, overhead and the estimated costs to fulfill our industrial cooperation agreements required under certain contracts with international customers). 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 total costs to complete the contract. Profit booking rates may increase during the performance of the contract if we successfully retire risks surrounding the technical, schedule and cost aspects of the contract which decreases the estimated total costs to complete the contract. Conversely, our profit booking rates may decrease if the estimated total costs to complete the contract increase. All of the estimates are subject to change during the performance of the contract and may affect the profit booking rate.

42

Table of Contents

We have a number of programs that are designated as classified by the U.S. Government which 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.

Our net sales are primarily derived from long-term contracts for products and services provided to the U.S. Government as well as FMS contracted through the U.S. Government. We account for these contracts, as well as product contracts with non-U.S. Government customers, using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, which represent substantially all 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 percentage-of-completion 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 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 percentage-of-completion method of accounting, changes in our cost of sales are typically accompanied by a related change in our net sales.

Changes in net sales and operating profit generally are expressed in terms of volume. Changes in volume refer to increases or decreases in sales or operating profit resulting from varying production activity levels, deliveries or service levels on individual contracts. Volume changes in segment operating profit are typically based on the current profit booking rate for a particular contract.

In addition, comparability of our segment sales, operating profit and operating margins may be impacted favorably or unfavorably by changes in profit booking rates on our contracts accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. Increases in the profit booking rates, typically referred to as risk retirements, usually relate to revisions in the estimated total costs that reflect improved conditions on a particular contract. Conversely, conditions on a particular contract may deteriorate resulting in an increase in the estimated total costs to complete and a reduction in the profit booking rate. Increases or decreases in profit booking rates are recognized in the current period and reflect the inception-to-date effect of such changes. Segment operating profit and margins may also be impacted favorably or unfavorably by other items. Favorable items may include the positive resolution of contractual matters, cost recoveries on restructuring charges, insurance recoveries and gains on sales of assets. Unfavorable items may include the adverse resolution of contractual matters; restructuring charges, except for significant severance actions as mentioned above which are excluded from segment operating results; reserves for disputes; asset impairments; and losses on sales of assets. Segment operating profit and items such as risk retirements, reductions of profit booking rates or other matters are presented net of state income taxes.

Our consolidated net adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, net of state income taxes, increased segment operating profit by approximately $1.9 billion, $1.8 billion and $2.1 billion for 2015, 2014 and 2013. The increase in our consolidated net adjustments in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to an increase in profit booking rate adjustments at our Space Systems, Aeronautics and IS&GS business segments, offset by a decrease in profit booking rate adjustments at our MST and MFC business segments. The decrease in our consolidated net adjustments in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to a decrease in profit booking rate adjustments at our Aeronautics, MFC and MST business segments. The consolidated net adjustments for 2015 are inclusive of approximately $645 million in unfavorable items, which include reserves for performance matters on an international program at MST and on commercial satellite programs at Space Systems. The consolidated net adjustments for 2014 are inclusive of approximately $650 million in unfavorable items, which include reserves recorded on certain training and logistics solutions programs at MST and net warranty reserve adjustments for various programs (including JASSM and GMLRS) at MFC as described in the respective business segment’s results of operations below. The consolidated net adjustments for 2013 are inclusive of approximately $600 million in unfavorable items, which include significant profit reductions on the F-35 development contract and on the C-5 program.

43

Table of Contents

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’ major programs include the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, C-130 Hercules, F-16 Fighting Falcon, C-5M Super Galaxy and F-22 Raptor. Aeronautics’ operating results included the following (in millions):

2015 compared to 2014

Aeronautics’ net sales in 2015 increased $650 million, or 4%, compared to 2014. The increase was attributable to higher net sales of approximately $1.4 billion for F-35 production contracts due to increased volume on aircraft production and sustainment activities; and approximately $150 million for the C-5 program due to increased deliveries (nine aircraft delivered in 2015 compared to seven delivered in 2014). The increases were partially offset by lower net sales of approximately $350 million for the C-130 program due to fewer aircraft deliveries (21 aircraft delivered in 2015, compared to 24 delivered in 2014), lower sustainment activities and aircraft contract mix; approximately $200 million due to decreased volume and lower risk retirements on various programs; approximately $195 million for the F-16 program due to fewer deliveries (11 aircraft delivered in 2015, compared to 17 delivered in 2014); and approximately $190 million for the F-22 program as a result of decreased sustainment activities.

Aeronautics’ operating profit in 2015 increased $32 million, or 2%, compared to 2014. Operating profit increased by approximately $240 million for F-35 production contracts due to increased volume and risk retirements; and approximately $40 million for the C-5 program due to increased risk retirements. These increases were offset by lower operating profit of approximately $90 million for the F-22 program due to lower risk retirements; approximately $70 million for the C-130 program as a result of the reasons stated above for lower net sales; and approximately $80 million due to decreased volume and risk retirements on various programs. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $100 million higher in 2015 compared to 2014.

2014 compared to 2013

Aeronautics’ net sales increased $797 million, or 6%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The increase was primarily attributable to higher net sales of approximately $790 million for F-35 production contracts due to increased volume and sustainment activities; about $55 million for the F-16 program due to increased deliveries (17 aircraft delivered in 2014 compared to 13 delivered in 2013) partially offset by contract mix; and approximately $45 million for the F-22 program due to increased risk retirements. The increases were partially offset by lower net sales of approximately $55 million for the F-35 development contract due to decreased volume, partially offset by the absence in 2014 of the downward revision to the profit booking rate that occurred in 2013; and about $40 million for the C-130 program due to fewer deliveries (24 aircraft delivered in 2014 compared to 25 delivered in 2013) and decreased sustainment activities, partially offset by contract mix.

Aeronautics’ operating profit increased $37 million, or 2%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The increase was primarily attributable to higher operating profit of approximately $85 million for the F-35 development contract due to the absence in 2014 of the downward revision to the profit booking rate that occurred in 2013; about $75 million for the F-22 program due to increased risk retirements; approximately $50 million for the C-130 program due to increased risk retirements and contract mix, partially offset by fewer deliveries; and about $25 million for the C-5 program due to the absence in 2014 of the downward revisions to the profit booking rate that occurred in 2013. The increases were partially offset by lower operating profit of approximately $130 million for the F-16 program due to decreased risk retirements, partially offset by increased deliveries; and about $70 million for sustainment activities due to decreased risk retirements and volume. Operating profit was comparable for F-35 production contracts as higher volume was offset by lower risk retirements. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $105 million lower for 2014 compared to 2013.

44

Table of Contents

Backlog

Backlog increased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to higher orders on F-35 and C-130 programs. Backlog decreased slightly in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to lower orders on F-16 and F-22 programs.

Trends

We expect Aeronautics’ 2016 net sales to increase in the mid-single digit percentage range as compared to 2015 due to increased volume on the F-35 and C-130 programs, partially offset by decreased volume on the F-16 program. Operating profit is also expected to increase in the low single-digit percentage range, driven by increased volume on the F-35 program offset by contract mix that results in a slight decrease in operating margins between years.

Information Systems & Global Solutions

Our IS&GS business segment provides advanced technology systems and expertise, integrated information technology solutions and management services across a broad spectrum of applications for civil, defense, intelligence and other government customers. IS&GS’ Technical Services business provides a comprehensive portfolio of technical and sustainment services. IS&GS has a portfolio of many smaller contracts as compared to our other business segments. IS&GS has been impacted by the continued downturn in certain federal agencies’ information technology budgets and increased re-competition on existing contracts coupled with the fragmentation of large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price. IS&GS’ operating results included the following (in millions):

2015 compared to 2014

IS&GS’ net sales decreased $58 million, or 1%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. The decrease was attributable to lower net sales of approximately $395 million as a result of key program completions, lower customer funding levels and increased competition, coupled with the fragmentation of existing large contracts into multiple smaller contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price when re-competed (including CMS-CITIC). These decreases were partially offset by higher net sales of approximately $230 million for businesses acquired in 2014; and approximately $110 million due to the start-up of new programs and growth in recently awarded programs.

IS&GS’ operating profit increased $36 million, or 8%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. The increase was attributable to improved program performance and risk retirements, offset by decreased operating profit resulting from the activities mentioned above for net sales. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $70 million higher in 2015 compared to 2014.

2014 compared to 2013

IS&GS’ net sales decreased $461 million, or 8%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower net sales of about $475 million due to the wind-down or completion of certain programs, driven by reductions in direct warfighter support (including JIEDDO); and approximately $320 million due to decreased volume in technical services programs reflecting market pressures. The decreases were offset by higher net sales of about $330 million due to the start-up of new programs, growth in recently awarded programs and integration of recently acquired companies.

IS&GS’ operating profit decreased $26 million, or 5%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The decrease was primarily attributable to the activities mentioned above for sales, partially offset by severance recoveries related to the restructuring announced in November 2013 of approximately $20 million in 2014. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments, were comparable in 2014 and 2013.

45

Table of Contents

Backlog

Backlog decreased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to sales being recognized on several multi-year programs (such as HMSC, NISC III, CIOG and NSF ASC) related to prior year awards and a limited number of large new business awards. Backlog decreased in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to lower customer funding levels and declining activities on direct warfighter support programs impacted by defense budget reductions.

Trends

We expect IS&GS’ 2016 net sales to decline in the high-single digit percentage range as compared to 2015, primarily driven by key loss contracts in an increasingly competitive environment, along with volume contraction on the segment’s major contracts. Operating profit is expected to decline at a higher percentage range in 2016, as compared to net sales percentage declines, driven by higher margin program losses and re-compete programs awarded at lower margins. Accordingly, 2016 margins are expected to be lower than 2015 results.

Missiles and Fire Control

Our MFC business segment provides air and missile defense systems; tactical missiles and air-to-ground precision strike weapon systems; logistics; fire control systems; mission operations support, readiness, engineering support and integration services; manned and unmanned ground vehicles; and energy management solutions. MFC’s major programs include PAC-3, THAAD, Multiple Launch Rocket System, Hellfire, JASSM, Javelin, Apache, Sniper^®, Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN^®) and SOF CLSS. MFC’s operating results included the following (in millions):

2015 compared to 2014

MFC’s net sales in 2015 decreased $322 million, or 5%, compared to the same period in 2014. The decrease was attributable to lower net sales of approximately $345 million for air and missile defense programs due to fewer deliveries (primarily PAC-3) and lower volume (primarily THAAD); and approximately $85 million for tactical missile programs due to fewer deliveries (primarily Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)) and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, partially offset by increased deliveries for Hellfire. These decreases were partially offset by higher net sales of approximately $55 million for energy solutions programs due to increased volume.

MFC’s operating profit in 2015 decreased $62 million, or 5%, compared to 2014. The decrease was attributable to lower operating profit of approximately $100 million for fire control programs due primarily to lower risk retirements (primarily LANTIRN and SNIPER); and approximately $65 million for tactical missile programs due to lower risk retirements (primarily Hellfire and GMLRS) and fewer deliveries. These decreases were partially offset by higher operating profit of approximately $75 million for air and missile defense programs due to increased risk retirements (primarily THAAD). Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $60 million lower in 2015 compared to 2014.

2014 compared to 2013

MFC’s net sales increased $297 million, or 4%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The increase was primarily attributable to higher net sales of approximately $180 million for air and missile defense programs primarily due to increased volume for THAAD; about $115 million for fire control programs due to increased deliveries (including Apache); and about $125 million for various other programs due to increased volume. These increases were partially offset by lower net sales of approximately $115 million for tactical missile programs due to fewer deliveries (primarily High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and Army Tactical Missile System).

MFC’s operating profit decreased $35 million, or 3%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower operating profit of about $20 million for tactical missile programs due to net warranty reserve adjustments for various programs (including JASSM and GMLRS) and fewer deliveries; and approximately $45 million for various other programs due to lower risk retirements. The decreases were offset by higher operating profit of approximately $20 million for air and missile defense programs due to increased volume (primarily THAAD and PAC-3); and about

46

Table of Contents

$15 million for fire control programs due to increased deliveries (primarily Apache), partially offset by lower risk retirements (primarily Sniper^®). Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $95 million lower for 2014 compared to 2013.

Backlog

Backlog increased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to higher orders on PAC-3, LANTIRN/Sniper and certain tactical missile programs, partially offset by lower orders on THAAD. Backlog decreased in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to lower orders on THAAD and fire control systems programs, partially offset by higher orders on certain tactical missile programs and PAC-3.

Trends

We expect MFC’s net sales to be flat or experience a slight decline in 2016 as compared to 2015. Operating profit is expected to decrease by approximately 20 percent, driven by contract mix and fewer risk retirements in 2016 compared to 2015. Accordingly, operating profit margin is expected to decline from 2015 levels.

Mission Systems and Training

As previously described, on November 6, 2015, we acquired Sikorsky and aligned the Sikorsky business under our MST business segment. The results of the acquired Sikorsky business have been included in our financial results from the November 6, 2015 acquisition date through December 31, 2015. As a result, our consolidated operating results and MST business segment operating results for the year ended December 31, 2015 do not reflect a full year of Sikorsky operations.

Our MST business segment provides design, manufacture, service and support for a variety of military and civil helicopters, ship and submarine mission and combat systems; mission systems and sensors for rotary and fixed-wing aircraft; sea and land-based missile defense systems; radar systems; the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS); simulation and training services; and unmanned systems and technologies. In addition, MST supports the needs of customers in cybersecurity and delivers communication and command and control capabilities through complex mission solutions for defense applications. MST’s major programs include Black Hawk and Seahawk helicopters, Aegis Combat System (Aegis), LCS, Space Fence, Advanced Hawkeye Radar System, and TPQ-53 Radar System. MST’s operating results included the following (in millions):

2015 compared to 2014

MST’s net sales in 2015 increased $359 million, or 4%, compared to 2014. The increase was attributable to net sales of approximately $400 million from Sikorsky, net of adjustments required to account for the acquisition of this business in the fourth quarter of 2015; and approximately $220 million for integrated warfare systems and sensors programs, primarily due to the ramp-up of recently awarded programs (Space Fence). These increases were partially offset by lower net sales of approximately $150 million for undersea systems programs due to decreased volume as a result of in-theater force reductions (primarily Persistent Threat Detection System); and approximately $105 million for ship and aviation systems programs primarily due to decreased volume (Merlin Capability Sustainment Program).

MST’s operating profit in 2015 decreased $92 million, or 10%, compared to 2014. Operating profit decreased by approximately $75 million due to performance matters on an international program; approximately $45 million for Sikorsky due primarily to intangible amortization and adjustments required to account for the acquisition of this business in the fourth quarter of 2015; and approximately $15 million for integrated warfare systems and sensors programs, primarily due to investments made in connection with a recently awarded next generation radar technology program, partially offset by higher risk retirements (including Halifax Class Modernization). These decreases were partially offset by approximately $20 million in increased operating profit for training and logistics services programs, primarily due to reserves recorded on certain programs in 2014 that were not repeated in 2015. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $100 million lower in 2015 compared to 2014.

47

Table of Contents

2014 compared to 2013

MST’s net sales decreased $305 million, or 3%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. Net sales decreased by approximately $305 million due to the wind-down or completion of certain C4ISR programs (primarily PTDS); about $85 million for undersea systems programs due to decreased volume and deliveries; and about $55 million related to the settlements of contract cost matters on certain programs in 2013 that were not repeated in 2014 (including a portion of the terminated presidential helicopter program). The decreases were partially offset by higher net sales of approximately $80 million for integrated warfare systems and sensors programs due to increased volume (primarily Space Fence); and approximately $40 million for training and logistics solutions programs due to increased deliveries (primarily Close Combat Tactical Trainer).

MST’s operating profit decreased $129 million, or 12%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower operating profit of approximately $120 million related to the settlements of contract cost matters on certain programs in 2013 that were not repeated in 2014 (including a portion of the terminated presidential helicopter program); approximately $55 million due to the reasons described above for lower C4ISR program sales, as well as performance matters on an international program; and approximately $45 million due to higher reserves recorded on certain training and logistics solutions programs. The decreases were partially offset by higher operating profit of approximately $45 million for performance matters and reserves recorded in 2013 that were not repeated in 2014; and about $60 million for various programs due to increased risk retirements (including MH-60 and radar surveillance programs). Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $85 million lower for 2014 compared to 2013.

Backlog

Backlog increased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to the addition of Sikorsky backlog, as well as higher orders on new program starts (such as Australian Defence Force Pilot Training System). Backlog increased in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to higher orders on new program starts (such as Space Fence).

Trends

We expect MST’s 2016 net sales to increase in the mid-double digit percentage range compared to 2015 net sales due to the inclusion of Sikorsky programs for a full year, partially offset by a decline in volume due to the wind-down or completion of certain programs. Operating profit is expected to be equivalent to 2015 on higher volume, and operating margin is expected to decline due to costs associated with the Sikorsky acquisition, including the impact of purchase accounting adjustments, integration costs and inherited restructuring costs associated with actions committed to by Sikorsky prior to acquisition.

Space Systems

Our Space Systems business segment is engaged in the research and development, design, engineering and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems and space transportation systems. Space Systems provides network-enabled situational awareness and integrates complex global systems to help our customers gather, analyze, and securely distribute critical intelligence data. Space Systems is also 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 (FBM), Orion, Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), AEHF, GPS-III, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R-Series (GOES-R), and MUOS. Operating profit for our Space Systems business segment includes our share of earnings for our investment in ULA, which provides expendable launch services to the U.S. Government. Space Systems’ operating results included the following (in millions):

2015 compared to 2014

Space Systems’ net sales in 2015 decreased $97 million, or 1%, compared to 2014. The decrease was attributable to approximately $335 million lower net sales for government satellite programs due to decreased volume (primarily AEHF) and the wind-down or completion of mission solutions programs; and approximately $55 million for strategic missile and defense systems due to lower volume. These decreases were partially offset by higher net sales of approximately $235 million for businesses acquired in 2014; and approximately $75 million for the Orion program due to increased volume.

48

Table of Contents

Space Systems’ operating profit in 2015 decreased $16 million, or 1%, compared to 2014. Operating profit increased approximately $85 million for government satellite programs due primarily to increased risk retirements. This increase was offset by lower operating profit of approximately $65 million for commercial satellite programs due to performance matters on certain programs; and approximately $35 million due to decreased equity earnings in joint ventures. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $105 million higher in 2015 compared to 2014.

2014 compared to 2013

Space Systems’ net sales decreased $86 million, or 1%, in 2014 as compared to 2013. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower net sales of approximately $335 million for government satellite programs due to decreased volume (primarily AEHF, GPS-III and MUOS); $190 million due to mission solutions’ programs transitioning from development to operations and support, wind-down or completion of certain programs, and defense budget cuts; and about $45 million for various other programs due to decreased volume. The decreases were partially offset by higher net sales of approximately $340 million for the Orion program due to increased volume (primarily the first unmanned test flight of the Orion MPCV); and about $145 million for commercial space transportation programs due to launch-related activities.

Space Systems’ operating profit for 2014 was comparable to 2013. Operating profit decreased by approximately $20 million for government satellite programs due to lower volume (primarily AEHF and GPS-III), partially offset by increased risk retirements (primarily MUOS); and about $20 million due to decreased equity earnings for joint ventures. The decreases were offset by higher operating profit of approximately $30 million for the Orion program due to increased volume. Operating profit was reduced by approximately $40 million for charges, net of recoveries, related to the restructuring action announced in November 2013. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and other matters, were approximately $10 million lower for 2014 compared to 2013.

Equity earnings

Total equity earnings recognized by Space Systems (primarily ULA) represented approximately $245 million, $280 million and $300 million, or 21%, 24% and 25% of this business segment’s operating profit during 2015, 2014 and 2013.

Backlog

Backlog decreased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to lower orders for government satellite programs and the Orion program and higher sales on the Orion program. Backlog decreased in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to lower orders and higher sales on the Orion program, partially offset by higher orders on SBIRS.

Trends

We expect Space Systems’ 2016 net sales to decline in the mid-single digit percentage range as compared to 2015, primarily driven by program lifecycles on government satellite programs. Operating profit is expected to decline by approximately 10 percent, primarily driven by contract mix and slightly lower equity earnings in 2016 compared to 2015. As a result, operating profit margin is expected to decline slightly between the years.

Liquidity and Cash Flows

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 continued to invest in our business, including capital expenditures, independent research and development and made selective business acquisitions, while returning cash to stockholders through dividends and share repurchases, and managing our debt levels, maturities and interest rates.

We have generated strong operating cash flows, which have been the primary source of funding for our operations, capital expenditures, debt service and repayments, dividends, share repurchases and postretirement benefit plan contributions. Our strong operating cash flows enabled our Board of Directors to approve two key cash deployment initiatives in September 2015. First, we increased our fourth quarter dividend rate by 10% to $1.65 per share. Second, the Board of Directors approved a $3.0 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Inclusive of this increase, the total remaining authorization for future common share repurchases under our program was $3.6 billion as of December 31, 2015. Further, based on a cash deployment initiative we announced in October 2014, we plan to reduce our total outstanding share count to below 300 million shares by the end of 2017, market conditions and our fiduciary obligations permitting. This plan was not affected by our acquisition of Sikorsky.

49

Table of Contents

We have accessed the capital markets opportunistically as we did in February 2015 when we issued $2.25 billion of long-term debt and as needed as we did in November 2015 when we issued $7.0 billion of long-term debt in connection with our acquisition of Sikorsky. We also used a combination of short-term debt financing, commercial paper and available cash to fund the Sikorsky acquisition, as discussed in “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” and “Note 10 – Debt” of our consolidated financial statements. We expect our cash from operations will continue to be sufficient to support our operations and anticipated capital expenditures for the foreseeable future. However, we expect to continue to issue commercial paper backed by our revolving credit facility to manage the timing of our cash flows. We expect to receive a tax-free special cash payment of approximately $1.8 billion as a result of the anticipated divestiture of our IS&GS business segment in the third or fourth quarter of 2016 that we intend to use to repay debt, pay dividends or repurchase stock, although the timing and closing of the transaction are uncertain and subject to obtaining Leidos stockholder and regulatory approvals and receipt of opinions of tax counsel. As described in the “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” section below, we have financing resources available to fund potential cash outflows that are less predictable or more discretionary, should they occur. We also have access to credit markets, if needed, for liquidity or general corporate purposes, including, but not limited to, our revolving credit facility or the ability to issue commercial paper, and 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. However, we may determine to fund customer programs ourselves pending government appropriations and are doing so with increased frequency. If we incur costs in excess of funds obligated on the contract, we may be at risk for reimbursement of the excess costs.

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 half of the sales we recorded in 2015, as we are authorized to bill as the costs are incurred or work is performed. 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 amount of performance-based payments and the related milestones are encompassed in the negotiation of each contract. The timing of such payments may differ from our incurrence of costs related to our contract performance, thereby affecting our cash flows.

The U.S. Government has indicated that it would consider progress payments as the baseline for negotiating payment terms on fixed-price contracts, rather than performance-based payments. In contrast to negotiated performance-based payment terms, progress payment provisions correspond to a percentage of the amount of costs incurred during the performance of the contract. While the total amount of cash collected on a contract is the same, performance-based payments have had a more favorable impact on the timing of our cash flows. In addition, our cash flows may be affected if the U.S. Government decides to withhold payments on our billings. While the impact of withholding payments delays the receipt of cash, the cumulative amount of cash collected during the life of the contract will not vary.

The majority of our capital expenditures for 2015 and those planned for 2016 are for equipment, facilities infrastructure and information technology. Expenditures for equipment and facilities infrastructure 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 higher production of the F-35 combat aircraft. In addition, we have projects underway to modernize certain of our facilities, inclusive of our efforts to consolidate and reduce leased facilities. We also incur capital expenditures for information technology to support programs and general enterprise information technology infrastructure, inclusive of costs for the development or purchase of internal-use software.

50

Table of Contents

The following table provides a summary of our cash flow information followed by a discussion of the key elements (in millions):

Operating Activities

2015 compared to 2014

Net cash provided by operating activities increased $1.2 billion in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to lower pension contributions, partially offset by decreases in working capital and higher tax payments. The $1.8 billion increase in cash flows related to Other, net in the table above is primarily because we made no contributions to our heritage qualified defined benefit pension trust in 2015 compared to $2.0 billion in 2014. We made $5.0 million in contributions to our new Sikorsky bargained qualified defined benefit pension plan in 2015. The increase in cash flows related to Other, net was offset by higher federal and foreign income tax payments, net of refunds received, of approximately $210 million in 2015 compared to 2014 due primarily to the absence of refunds received in 2015 (prior year’s tax refunds were attributable to timing of discretionary pension contributions made during the fourth quarter of the respective previous years). The $474 million decrease in cash flows related to working capital (defined as receivables and inventories less accounts payable and customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred) was attributable to an increase in receivables due to timing of customer collections (primarily F-35 contracts) as well as timing of production and billing cycles affecting customer advances and progress payments applied to inventories (primarily C-130 program). See “Critical Accounting Policies – Postretirement Benefit Plans” (under the caption “Funding Considerations”) for discussion of future postretirement benefit plan funding.

2014 compared to 2013

Net cash provided by operating activities decreased $680 million in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to higher tax payments, net of refunds received and increases in working capital. Our federal and foreign income tax payments, net of refunds received, were approximately $760 million higher in 2014 compared to 2013 due to an increase in net income and lower refunds received in 2014 (attributable to timing of discretionary pension contributions made during the fourth quarter of 2012). The decrease of $274 million in cash provided by working capital (defined as receivables and inventories less accounts payable and customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred) was primarily attributable to lower cash receipts related to accounts receivable, primarily timing on the F-35 production contracts (including amounts received in 2013 from resolving U.S. Government contractual withholds that were not repeated in 2014). Partially offsetting the decreases in operating cash flows were lower pension contributions in 2014. We made $2.0 billion in contributions to our qualified defined benefit pension plans in 2014, compared to $2.25 billion in 2013.

Investing Activities

Net cash used for investing activities increased $8.0 billion and $602 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively, compared to the prior year, primarily due to increased acquisition activities. Acquisition activities include both the acquisition of businesses and investments in affiliates. We paid $9.0 billion in 2015 for the Sikorsky acquisition, net of cash acquired (Note 3). We paid $898 million in 2014 for acquisition activities, primarily related to the acquisitions of Zeta, Systems Made Simple, and Industrial Defender. In 2013, we paid $269 million for acquisition activities, primarily related to the acquisition of Amor Group.

51

Table of Contents

Capital expenditures amounted to $939 million in 2015, $845 million in 2014 and $836 million in 2013. The majority of our capital expenditures were for equipment and facilities infrastructure that generally are incurred to support new and existing programs across all of our business segments. We also incur capital expenditures for information technology to support programs and general enterprise information technology infrastructure, inclusive of costs for the development or purchase of internal-use-software.

Additionally, in 2015, we received cash proceeds of approximately $165 million related to three properties sold in California.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities increased $7.6 billion in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to proceeds from new debt issuances, partially offset by increased repurchases of common stock and higher dividends paid. Net cash used for financing activities increased $608 million in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to decreased proceeds from stock option exercises in 2014, higher dividends paid and increased repurchases of common stock, partially offset by the repayment of long-term notes in 2013.

In February 2015, we received net proceeds of $2.21 billion for the issuance of $2.25 billion of fixed interest-rate long-term notes. In November 2015, we borrowed $7.0 billion of fixed interest-rate long-term notes and received net proceeds of $6.9 billion (the November 2015 Notes). These proceeds were used to repay $6.0 billion of outstanding borrowings under a 364-day revolving credit facility that was used to finance a portion of the purchase price for the Sikorsky acquisition. Additionally, in the fourth quarter of 2015, to partially finance the Sikorsky acquisition we borrowed and repaid approximately $1.0 billion under our commercial paper program. See “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” for more information about our debt financing activities.

We paid dividends totaling $1.9 billion ($6.15 per share) in 2015, $1.8 billion ($5.49 per share) in 2014 and $1.5 billion ($4.78 per share) in 2013. We have increased our quarterly dividend rate in each of the last three years, including a 10% increase in the quarterly dividend rate in the fourth quarter of 2015. We declared quarterly dividends of $1.50 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2015 and $1.65 per share during the fourth quarter of 2015; $1.33 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2014 and $1.50 per share during the fourth quarter of 2014; and $1.15 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2013 and $1.33 per share during the fourth quarter of 2013.

We paid $3.1 billion, $1.9 billion and $1.8 billion to repurchase 15.2 million, 11.5 million and 16.2 million shares of our common stock during 2015, 2014 and 2013.

Cash received from the issuance of our common stock in connection with employee stock option exercises during 2015, 2014 and 2013 totaled $174 million, $308 million and $827 million. The exercises resulted in the issuance of 2.2 million shares, 3.7 million shares and 10.0 million shares of our common stock.

In 2013, we repaid $150 million of long-term notes with a fixed interest rate of 7.38% due to their scheduled maturities.

Capital Structure, Resources and Other

At December 31, 2015, we held cash and cash equivalents of $1.1 billion. As of December 31, 2015, approximately $400 million of our cash and cash equivalents was held outside of the U.S. by foreign subsidiaries. Although those balances are generally available to fund ordinary business operations without legal or other restrictions, a significant portion is not immediately available to fund U.S. operations unless repatriated. Our intention is to permanently reinvest earnings from our foreign subsidiaries. While we do not intend to do so, if this cash had been repatriated at the end of 2015, we estimate that about $48 million of U.S. federal income tax would have been due after considering foreign tax credits.

Our outstanding debt, net of unamortized discounts and deferred financing costs, amounted to $15.3 billion at December 31, 2015 and mainly is in the form of publicly-issued notes that bear interest at fixed rates. As of December 31, 2015, we were in compliance with all covenants contained in our debt and credit agreements.

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.

52

Table of Contents

Revolving Credit Facilities

On October 9, 2015, we entered into a new $2.5 billion revolving credit facility (the 5-year Facility) with various banks and concurrently terminated our existing $1.5 billion revolving credit facility, which was scheduled to expire in August 2016. The 5-year Facility, which expires on October 9, 2020, is available for general corporate purposes. The undrawn portion of the 5-year Facility is also available to serve as a backup facility for the issuance of commercial paper. We may request and the banks may grant, at their discretion, an increase to the new credit facility up to an additional $500 million. There were no borrowings outstanding under the 5-year Facility as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015.

In contemplation of our acquisition of Sikorsky, on October 9, 2015, we also entered into a 364-day revolving credit facility (the 364-day Facility, and together with the 5-year Facility, the Facilities) with various banks that provided $7.0 billion of funding for general corporate purposes, including the acquisition of Sikorsky. Concurrent with the consummation of the Sikorsky acquisition, we borrowed $6.0 billion under the 364-day Facility. On November 23, 2015, we repaid all outstanding borrowings under the 364-day Facility with proceeds received from the issuance of the November 2015 Notes described below and terminated any remaining commitments of the lenders under the 364-day Facility.

Borrowings under the Facilities are unsecured and bear interest at rates based, at our option, on a Eurodollar Rate or a Base Rate, as defined in the Facilities’ agreements. Each bank’s obligation to make loans under the 5-year 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 5-year Facility agreement.

Long-Term Debt

On November 23, 2015, we issued $7.0 billion of notes (the November 2015 Notes) in a registered public offering. We received net proceeds of $6.9 billion from the offering, after deducting discounts and debt issuance costs, which are being amortized as interest expense over the life of the debt. The November 2015 Notes consist of:

We may, at our option, redeem some or all of the November 2015 Notes and unpaid interest at any time by paying the principal amount of notes being redeemed plus any make-whole premium and accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. Interest is payable on the 2018 Notes and the 2020 Notes on May 23 and November 23 of each year, beginning on May 23, 2016; on the 2023 Notes and the 2026 Notes on January 15 and July 15 of each year, beginning on July 15, 2016; and on the 2036 Notes and the 2046 Notes on May 15 and November 15 of each year, beginning on May 15, 2016. The November 2015 Notes rank equally in right of payment with all of our existing unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness. The proceeds of the November 2015 Notes were used to repay the $6.0 billion of borrowings under our 364-day Facility and for general Corporate purposes.

On February 20, 2015, we issued $2.25 billion of notes (the February 2015 Notes) in a registered public offering. We received net proceeds of $2.21 billion from the offering, after deducting discounts and debt issuance costs, which are being amortized as interest expense over the life of the debt. The February 2015 Notes consist of $750 million maturing in 2025 with a fixed interest rate of 2.90%, $500 million maturing in 2035 with a fixed interest rate of 3.60% and $1.0 billion maturing in 2045 with a fixed interest rate of 3.80%. We may, at our option, redeem some or all of the notes at any time by paying the principal amount of notes being redeemed plus any make-whole premium and accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. Interest on the notes is payable on March 1 and September 1 of each year, beginning on September 1, 2015. These notes rank equally in right of payment with all of our existing unsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness. The proceeds of the February 2015 Notes were used for general Corporate purposes.

We also have an effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3 on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to provide for the issuance of an indeterminate amount of debt securities.

53

Table of Contents

Commercial Paper

We have agreements in place with financial institutions to provide for the issuance of commercial paper backed by our $2.5 billion credit facility. In connection with the Sikorsky acquisition, in the fourth quarter of 2015 we borrowed and repaid approximately $1.0 billion under our commercial paper program. There were no commercial paper borrowings outstanding as of December 31, 2015. However, we expect to continue to issue commercial paper backed by our credit facility to manage the timing of our cash flows.

Stockholders’ Equity

Our stockholders’ equity was $3.1 billion at December 31, 2015, a decrease of $303 million from December 31, 2014. The decrease was primarily due to the repurchase of 15.2 million common shares for $3.1 billion; and dividends declared of $1.9 billion during the year. These decreases were partially offset by net earnings of $3.6 billion; employee stock activity of $660 million (including the impacts of stock option exercises, ESOP activity and stock-based compensation); and the amortization of $850 million in 2015 postretirement benefit plan expense, offset by the re-measurements of our postretirement benefit plans of $351 million.

As we repurchase our common shares, we reduce common stock for the $1 of par value of the shares repurchased, with the excess 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 purchase price over par value of $2.4 billion recorded as a reduction of retained earnings in 2015.

Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

At December 31, 2015, 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 not material. Payments due under these obligations and commitments are as follows (in millions):

Amounts related to other liabilities represent the contractual obligations for certain long-term liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2015. Such amounts mainly include expected payments under non-qualified pension plans, environmental liabilities and deferred compensation plans.

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 for operating activities in the preceding table include approximately $36.7 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 Federal Acquisition Regulation (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.

54

Table of Contents

Purchase obligations in the preceding table for capital expenditures generally include facilities infrastructure, equipment and information technology.

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, establishment of ventures with local companies 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. The costs to satisfy our offset obligations are included in the estimates of our total costs to complete the contract and may impact our profitability and cash flows. The ability to recover investments that we make is generally dependent upon the successful operation of ventures that we do not control and may involve products and services that are dissimilar to our business activities. At December 31, 2015, the remaining obligations under our outstanding offset agreements totaled $16 billion, which primarily relate to our Aeronautics, MFC and MST business segments, most of which extend through 2028. To the extent we have entered into purchase obligations at December 31, 2015 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, estimated at approximately $1.4 billion at December 31, 2015, in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. While historically we have not been required to pay material penalties, resolution of offset requirements are often the result of negotiations and subjective judgments.

In connection with our 50% ownership interest of ULA, we and The Boeing Company (Boeing) are required to provide ULA an additional capital contribution if ULA is unable to make required payments under its inventory supply agreement with Boeing. As of December 31, 2015, ULA’s total remaining obligation to Boeing under the inventory supply agreement was $120 million. The parties have agreed to defer the remaining payment obligation as it is more than offset by other commitments to ULA. Accordingly, we do not expect to be required to make a capital contribution to ULA under this agreement.

In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified each other for 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, 2015, 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 the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds generally are available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as venture partners. At December 31, 2015, we had the following outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees (in millions):

At December 31, 2015, third-party guarantees totaled $678 million, of which approximately 79% related to guarantees of contractual performance of 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 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

55

Table of Contents

venture partner. We believe our current and former venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through December 31, 2015, and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the guarantees. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former venture partners.

Critical Accounting Policies

Contract Accounting / Sales Recognition

Substantially all of our net sales are accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method, which 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, which we account for under a services accounting model.

We evaluate new or significantly modified contracts with customers other than the U.S. Government, to the extent the contracts include multiple elements, to determine if the individual deliverables should be accounted for as separate units of accounting. When we determine that accounting for the deliverables as separate units is appropriate, we allocate the contract value to the deliverables based on their relative estimated selling prices. The contracts or contract modifications we evaluate for multiple elements typically are long-term in nature and include the provision of both products and services. Based on the nature of our business, we generally account for components of such contracts using the percentage-of-completion accounting model or the services accounting model, as appropriate.

We classify net sales as products or services on our Statements of Earnings based on the predominant attributes of the underlying contract. Most of our long-term contracts are denominated in U.S. dollars, including contracts for sales of military products and services to international governments contracted through the U.S. Government. We record sales for both products and services under cost-reimbursable, fixed-price and time-and-materials contracts.

Contract Types

Cost-reimbursable contracts

Cost-reimbursable contracts, which accounted for about 43%, 40%, and 45% of our total net sales in 2015, 2014, and 2013, provide for the payment of allowable costs incurred during performance of the contract plus a fee, up to a ceiling based on the amount that has been funded. We generate revenue under two general types of cost-reimbursable contracts: cost-plus-award-fee/incentive-fee contracts, which represent a substantial majority of our cost-reimbursable contracts; and cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.

Cost-plus-award-fee contracts provide for an award fee that varies within specified limits based on the customer’s assessment of our performance against a predetermined set of criteria, such as targets based on cost, quality, technical and schedule criteria. Cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts provide for reimbursement of costs plus a fee which is adjusted by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs (incentive based on cost) or reimbursement of costs plus an incentive to exceed stated performance targets (incentive based on performance). The fixed fee in a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is negotiated at the inception of the contract and that fixed fee does not vary with actual costs.

Fixed-price and other contracts

Under fixed-price contracts, which accounted for about 54%, 55%, and 50% of our total net sales in 2015, 2014, and 2013, we agree to perform the specified work for a pre-determined price. To the extent our actual costs vary from the estimates upon which the price was negotiated, we will generate more or less profit or could incur a loss. Some fixed-price contracts have a performance-based component under which we may earn incentive payments or incur financial penalties based on our performance.

Under time-and-materials contracts, which accounted for about 3% of our total net sales in 2015 and 5% of our total net sales in 2014 and 2013, we are paid a fixed hourly rate for each direct labor hour expended and we are reimbursed for allowable material costs and allowable out-of-pocket expenses. To the extent our actual direct labor and associated costs vary in relation to the fixed hourly billing rates provided in the contract, we will generate more or less profit or could incur a loss.

Percentage-of-Completion Method

We record net sales and an estimated profit on a percentage-of-completion basis for cost-reimbursable and fixed-price contracts for product and services contracts with the U.S. Government.

56

Table of Contents

The percentage-of-completion method for product contracts depends on the nature of the products provided under the contract. For example, for contracts that require us to perform a significant level of development effort in comparison to the total value of the contract and/or to deliver minimal quantities, sales are recorded using the cost-to-cost method to measure progress toward completion. Under the cost-to-cost method, we recognize sales and an estimated profit as costs are incurred based on the proportion that the incurred costs bear to total estimated costs. For contracts that require us to provide a substantial number of similar items without a significant level of development, we record sales and an estimated profit on a percentage-of-completion basis using units-of-delivery as the basis to measure progress toward completing the contract. For contracts to provide services to the U.S. Government, sales are generally recorded using the cost-to-cost method.

Award and incentive fees, as well as penalties related to contract performance, are considered in estimating sales and profit rates on contracts accounted for under the percentage-of-completion method. Estimates of award fees are based on past experience and anticipated performance. We record incentives or penalties when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated contract performance. Incentive provisions that increase or decrease earnings based solely on a single significant event are not recognized until the event occurs.

Accounting for contracts using the percentage-of-completion method requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract sales and costs (including estimating award and incentive fees and penalties related to performance) and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the number of years it may take to complete many of our contracts and the scope and nature of the work required to be performed on those contracts, the estimation of total sales and costs at completion is complicated and subject to many variables and, accordingly, is subject to change. When adjustments in estimated total contract sales or estimated total costs are required, any changes from prior estimates are recognized in the current period for the inception-to-date effect of such changes.

Our estimates of costs at completion of the contract are based on assumptions we make for variables such as labor productivity and availability, the complexity of the work to be performed, the availability of materials, the length of time to complete the contract (to estimate increases in wages and prices for materials), performance by our subcontractors and the availability and timing of funding from our customer, among other variables. When estimates of total costs to be incurred on a contract exceed total estimates of sales to be earned, a provision for the entire loss on the contract is recorded in the period in which the loss is determined.

Many of our contracts 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 cost 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 (e.g., a newly-developed product versus a mature product), the schedule and associated tasks (e.g., the number and type of milestone events) and costs (e.g., material, labor, subcontractor, overhead and the estimated costs to fulfill our industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, required under certain contracts with international customers). 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 total costs to complete the contract. Profit booking rates may increase during the performance of the contract if we successfully retire risks surrounding the technical, schedule and cost aspects of the contract which decreases the estimated total costs to complete the contract. Conversely, our profit booking rates may decrease if the estimated total costs to complete the contract increase. All of the estimates are subject to change during the performance of the contract and may affect the profit booking rate.

In addition, comparability of our segment sales, operating profit and operating margins may be impacted favorably or unfavorably by changes in profit booking rates on our contracts accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. Increases in the profit booking rates, typically referred to as risk retirements, usually relate to revisions in the estimated total costs that reflect improved conditions on a particular contract. Conversely, conditions on a particular contract may deteriorate resulting in an increase in the estimated total costs to complete and a reduction in the profit booking rate. Increases or decreases in profit booking rates are recognized in the current period and reflect the inception-to-date effect of such changes. Segment operating profit and margins may also be impacted favorably or unfavorably by other items. Favorable items may include the positive resolution of contractual matters, cost recoveries on restructuring charges, insurance recoveries and gains on sales of assets. Unfavorable items may include the adverse resolution of contractual matters; restructuring charges, except for significant severance actions as mentioned above which are excluded from segment operating results; reserves for disputes; asset impairments; and losses on sales of assets. Segment operating profit and items such as risk retirements, reductions of profit booking rates or other matters are presented net of state income taxes.

57

Table of Contents

Services Method

Under a fixed-price service contract, we are paid a predetermined fixed amount for a specified scope of work and generally have full responsibility for the costs associated with the contract and the resulting profit or loss. We record net sales under fixed-price service contracts to non-U.S. Government customers on a straight-line basis over the period of contract performance, unless evidence suggests that net sales are earned or the obligations are fulfilled in a different pattern. For cost-reimbursable contracts for services to non-U.S. Government customers that provide for award and incentive fees, we record net sales as services are performed, exclusive of award and incentive fees. Award and incentive fees are recorded when they are fixed or determinable, generally at the date the amount is communicated to us by the customer. This approach results in the recognition of such fees at contractual intervals (typically every six months) throughout the contract and is dependent on the customer’s processes for notification of awards and issuance of formal notifications. Costs for all service contracts are expensed as incurred.

Other Contract Accounting Considerations

The majority of our sales are driven by pricing based on costs incurred to produce products or perform services under contracts with the U.S. Government. Cost-based pricing is determined under the FAR. The FAR provides guidance on the types of costs that are allowable in establishing prices for goods and services under U.S. Government contracts. For example, costs such as those related to charitable contributions, interest expense and certain advertising and public relations activities are unallowable and, therefore, not recoverable through sales. In addition, we may enter into advance agreements with the U.S. Government that address the subjects of allowability and allocability of costs to contracts for specific matters. For example, most of the environmental costs we incur for environmental remediation related to sites operated in prior years are allocated to our current operations as general and administrative costs under FAR provisions and supporting advance agreements reached with the U.S. Government.

We closely monitor compliance with and the consistent application of our critical accounting policies related to contract accounting. Costs incurred and allocated to contracts are reviewed for compliance with U.S. Government regulations by our personnel and are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Postretirement Benefit Plans

Overview

Many of our employees participate in qualified and nonqualified defined benefit pension plans, retiree medical and life insurance plans and other postemployment plans (collectively, postretirement benefit plans – see Note 11). The majority of our accrued benefit obligations relate to our qualified defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical and life insurance plans. We recognize on a plan-by-plan basis the net funded status of these postretirement benefit plans under GAAP as either an asset or a liability on our Balance Sheets. There is a corresponding non-cash adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax benefits recorded as deferred tax assets, in stockholders’ equity. The GAAP funded status represents the difference between the fair value of each plan’s assets and the benefit obligation of the plan. The GAAP benefit obligation represents the present value of the estimated future benefits we currently expect to pay to plan participants based on past service.

In June 2014, we amended certain of our qualified and nonqualified defined benefit pension plans for non-union employees to freeze future retirement benefits. The freeze will take effect in two stages. Beginning on January 1, 2016, the pay-based component of the formula used to determine retirement benefits was frozen so that future pay increases, annual incentive bonuses or other amounts earned for or related to periods after December 31, 2015 will not be used to calculate retirement benefits. On January 1, 2020, the service-based component of the formula used to determine retirement benefits will also be frozen so that participants will no longer earn further credited service for any period after December 31, 2019. When the freeze is complete, the majority of our salaried employees will have transitioned to an enhanced defined contribution retirement savings plan.

Notwithstanding these actions, the impact of these plans and benefits on our earnings may be volatile in that the amount of expense we record and the funded status for our postretirement benefit plans may materially change from year to year because those calculations are sensitive to funding levels as well as changes in several key economic assumptions, including interest rates, actual rates of return on plan assets and other actuarial assumptions including participant longevity and employee turnover, as well as the timing of cash funding.

58

Table of Contents

Actuarial Assumptions

The plan assets and benefit obligations are measured at the end of each year or more frequently, upon the occurrence of certain events such as a significant plan amendment, settlement or curtailment. The amounts we record are measured using actuarial valuations, which are dependent upon key assumptions such as discount rates, employee turnover, participant longevity, the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets and the health care cost trend rates for our retiree medical plans. The assumptions we make affect both the calculation of the benefit obligations as of the measurement date and the calculation of net periodic benefit cost in subsequent periods. When reassessing these assumptions we consider past and current market conditions and make judgments about future market trends. We also consider factors such as the timing and amounts of expected contributions to the plans and benefit payments to plan participants.

We utilized a discount rate of 4.375% when calculating our benefit obligations related to our defined benefit pension plans at December 31, 2015, compared to 4.00% at December 31, 2014 and 4.75% at December 31, 2013. We utilized a discount rate of 4.25% when calculating our benefit obligations related to our retiree medical plans at December 31, 2015, compared to 3.75% at December 31, 2014 and 4.50% at December 31, 2013. We evaluate several data points in order to arrive at an appropriate discount rate, including results from cash flow models, quoted rates from long-term bond indices and changes in long-term bond rates over the past year. As part of our evaluation, we calculate the approximate average yields on corporate bonds rated AA or better selected to match our projected postretirement benefit plan cash flows.

We utilized an expected long-term rate of return on plan assets of 8.00% at December 31, 2015, consistent with the rate used at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The long-term rate of return assumption represents the expected long-term rate of return on the funds invested or to be invested, to provide for the benefits included in the benefit obligations. This assumption is based on several factors including historical market index returns, the anticipated long-term allocation of plan assets, the historical return data for the trust funds, plan expenses and the potential to outperform market index returns. The difference between the long-term rate of return on plan assets assumption we select and the actual return on plan assets in any given year affects both the funded status of our benefit plans and the calculation of FAS pension expense in subsequent periods. Although the actual return in any specific year likely will differ from the assumption, the average expected return over a long-term future horizon should be approximately equal to the assumption. As a result, changes in this assumption are less frequent than changes in the discount rate.

Our stockholders’ equity has been reduced cumulatively by $11.3 billion from the annual year-end measurements of the funded status of postretirement benefit plans. The cumulative non-cash, after-tax reduction primarily represents net actuarial losses resulting from declines in discount rates from 6.375% at the end of 2007 to 4.375% at the end of 2015 and investment losses incurred during 2008 and 2015, which will be amortized to expense over the average future service period of employees expected to receive benefits under the plans of approximately 10 years as of December 31, 2015. During 2015, $850 million of these amounts was recognized as a component of postretirement benefit plans expense and about $693 million is expected to be recognized as expense in 2016.

The discount rate and long-term rate of return on plan assets assumptions we select at the end of each year are based on our best estimates and judgment. A change of plus or minus 25 basis points in the 4.375% discount rate assumption at December 31, 2015, with all other assumptions held constant, would have decreased or increased the amount of the qualified pension benefit obligation we recorded at the end of 2015 by approximately $1.5 billion, which would result in an after-tax increase or decrease in stockholders’ equity at the end of the year of approximately $1.0 billion. If the 4.375% discount rate at December 31, 2015 that was used to compute the expected 2016 FAS pension expense for our qualified defined benefit pension plans had been 25 basis points higher or lower, with all other assumptions held constant, the amount of FAS pension expense projected for 2016 would be lower or higher by approximately $120 million. If the 8.00% expected long-term rate of return on plan assets assumption at December 31, 2015 that was used to compute the expected 2016 FAS pension expense for our qualified defined benefit pension plans had been 25 basis points higher or lower, with all other assumptions held constant, the amount of FAS pension expense projected for 2016 would be lower or higher by approximately $85 million.

Funding Considerations

We made contributions related to our qualified defined benefit pension plans of $2.0 billion in 2014 and $2.25 billion in 2013 inclusive of amounts in excess of our required contributions. We made $5 million in contributions to our new Sikorsky bargained qualified defined benefit pension plan in 2015. Funding of our qualified defined benefit pension plans is determined in a manner consistent with CAS and in accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). Our goal has been to fund the pension plans to a level of at least 80%, as determined under the PPA. This ERISA funded status is calculated on a different basis than under GAAP. In

59

Table of Contents

July 2012, the U.S. Government passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 (MAP-21), which included a provision that changed the methodology for calculating the interest rate assumption used in determining the minimum funding requirements under the PPA. As a result of MAP-21 there was an increase in the interest rate assumption, which in turn lowered the minimum funding requirements. The impact of MAP-21 decreased each year and was scheduled to phase out by 2016. On August 8, 2014, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HATFA) was enacted; and on November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015; which extend the methodology put in place by MAP-21 to calculate the interest rate assumption so that the impact will begin to decrease in 2021 and phase out by 2024. This has the effect of lowering our minimum funding requirements during the affected periods from what they otherwise would have been had the legislation not been enacted. The ERISA funded status of our qualified defined benefit pension plans was about 90% and 92% as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. The GAAP funded status of our qualified defined benefit pension plans was about 73% and 76% funded at December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Contributions to our defined benefit pension plans are recovered over time through the pricing of our products and services on U.S. Government contracts, including FMS, and are recognized in our cost of sales and net sales. CAS govern the extent to which our pension costs are allocable to and recoverable under contracts with the U.S. Government, including FMS. We recovered $1.6 billion in 2015 and $1.5 billion in both 2014 and 2013 as CAS pension costs. Effective February 27, 2012, CAS rules were revised to better align the recovery of pension costs, including prepayment credits, on U.S. Government contracts with the minimum funding requirements of the PPA (referred to as CAS Harmonization). Specifically, CAS Harmonization shortened the amortization period for allocating gains and losses to U.S. Government contracts from 15 to 10 years and requires the use of an interest rate to determine CAS pension cost consistent with the interest rate used to determine minimum pension funding requirements under the PPA. While the change in the amortization period was applicable beginning in 2013, there is a transition period for the impact of the change in the CAS liability measurement due to the revised interest rate that will be phased in with the full impact occurring in 2017. We expect the incremental impact of CAS Harmonization will increase successively through 2017, primarily due to the liability measurement transition period included in the amended rule. The enactment of the HATFA and Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 also increased the interest rate assumption used to determine our CAS pension costs, which has the effect of lowering the recovery of pension contributions during the affected periods as it decreases our CAS pension costs.

Pension cost recoveries under CAS occur in different periods from when pension contributions are made under the PPA. Amounts contributed in excess of the CAS pension costs recovered under U.S. Government contracts are considered to be prepayment credits under the CAS rules. As of December 31, 2015, our prepayment credits were approximately $9.0 billion as compared to $10.8 billion at December 31, 2014. The prepayment balance will increase or decrease based on our actual investment return on plan assets.

Trends

We do not plan to make contributions to our heritage pension plans in 2016 or 2017 because none are required using current assumptions, including anticipated investment returns on plan assets. However, we do plan to make contributions of approximately $25 million in 2016 and about $35 million in 2017 to our new Sikorsky bargained qualified defined benefit pension plan. We anticipate recovering approximately $2.0 billion of CAS pension cost in 2016 with a higher CAS recovery projected in 2017. Since the annual amount of CAS cost is more than our planned cash funding in each of these years, we will recover a portion of the $9.0 billion of prepayment credits existing at December 31, 2015.

We expect our 2016 FAS pension expense to be $1.0 billion, which is comparable to our 2015 FAS pension expense of $1.1 billion. Also, we expect FAS/CAS pension income in 2016 of about $975 million, as compared to FAS/CAS pension income of $471 million in 2015, primarily due to higher CAS pension costs due to CAS Harmonization.

Environmental Matters

We are a party to various agreements, proceedings and potential proceedings for environmental cleanup issues, including matters at various sites where we have been designated a potentially responsible party (PRP). At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the total amount of liabilities recorded on our Balance Sheet for environmental matters was $1.0 billion and $965 million. We have recorded receivables totaling $858 million and $836 million at December 31, 2015 and 2014 for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of future recovery in pricing of our products and services for agencies of the U.S. Government, as discussed below. The amount that is expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined to not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts has been expensed through cost of sales. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years. Our acquisition of Sikorsky included certain environmental remediation liabilities that are among those recorded on our Balance Sheet, along with the related receivables for probable future recovery. These amounts did not materially impact our consolidated financial statements.

60

Table of Contents

We enter into agreements (e.g., administrative orders, consent decrees) that document the extent and timing of our environmental remediation obligation. We also are involved in remediation activities at environmental sites where formal agreements either do not exist or do not quantify the extent and timing of our obligation. Environmental cleanup activities usually span many years, which makes estimating the costs more judgmental due to, for example, changing remediation technologies. To determine the costs related to cleanup sites, we have to assess the extent of contamination, effects on natural resources, the appropriate technology to be used to accomplish the remediation and evolving governmental environmental standards.

We perform quarterly reviews of environmental remediation sites and record liabilities and receivables in the period it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred and the amounts can be reasonably estimated (see the discussion under “Environmental Matters” in “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” and “Note 14 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” to our consolidated financial statements). We consider the above factors in our quarterly estimates of the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities, which results in the calculation of a range of estimates for a particular environmental site. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. Given the required level of judgment and estimation, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if different assumptions were used or if circumstances were to change (e.g., a change in environmental standards or a change in our estimate of the extent of contamination).

On July 1, 2014, a regulation became effective in California setting the maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb). In May 2014, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association filed a suit alleging the 10 ppb threshold is lower than is required to protect public health and thus imposes unjustified costs on the regulated community. We cannot predict the outcome of this suit or whether other challenges may be advanced by the regulated community or environmental groups which had sought a significantly higher and lower standard, respectively. If the new standard remains at 10 ppb, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California. In addition, California is reevaluating its existing drinking water standard with respect to a second contaminant, perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is also considering whether to regulate perchlorate and hexavalent chromium in drinking water. In February 2016, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit in federal court in New York against the U.S. EPA to compel the U.S. EPA to set an enforceable drinking water standard for perchlorate. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level, for perchlorate or, if the U.S. EPA were to adopt a standard for hexavalent chromium lower than 10 ppb, we expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined to not be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular interim reporting period.

Under agreements reached with the U.S. Government, most of the amounts we spend for environmental remediation are allocated to our operations as general and administrative costs. Under existing government regulations, these and other environmental expenditures relating to our U.S. Government business, after deducting any recoveries received from insurance or other PRPs, are allowable in establishing prices of our products and services. As a result, most of the expenditures we incur are included in our net sales and cost of sales according to U.S. Government agreement or regulation, regardless of the contract form (e.g. cost-reimbursable, fixed-price). We continually evaluate the recoverability of our environmental receivables by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix and our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs.

As disclosed above, we may record changes in the amount of environmental remediation liabilities as a result of our quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites, which would result in a change to the corresponding environmental receivable and a charge to earnings. For example, if we were to determine that the liabilities should be increased by $100 million, the corresponding receivables would be increased by approximately $87 million, with the remainder recorded as a charge to earnings. This allocation is determined annually, based upon our existing and projected business activities with the U.S. Government.

We reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure at all environmental sites with which we are involved. There are a number of former operating facilities we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. In some cases, although a loss may be probable, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation for remediation activities because of uncertainties (e.g., assessing the extent of the contamination). During any particular quarter, such uncertainties may be resolved, allowing us to estimate and recognize the initial liability to remediate a particular former operating site. The amount of the liability could be material. Upon recognition of the liability, a portion will be recognized as a receivable with the remainder charged to earnings which may have a material effect in any particular interim reporting period.

61

Table of Contents

If we are ultimately found to have liability at those sites where we have been designated a PRP, we expect that the actual costs of remediation will be shared with other liable PRPs. Generally, PRPs that are ultimately determined to be responsible parties are strictly liable for site cleanup and usually agree among themselves to share, on an allocated basis, the costs and expenses for investigation and remediation. Under existing environmental laws, responsible parties are jointly and severally liable and, therefore, we are potentially liable for the full cost of funding such remediation. In the unlikely event that we were required to fund the entire cost of such remediation, the statutory framework provides that we may pursue rights of cost recovery or contribution from the other PRPs. The amounts we record do not reflect the fact that we may recover some of the environmental costs we have incurred through insurance or from other PRPs, which we are required to pursue by agreement and U.S. Government regulation.

Goodwill

The assets and liabilities of acquired businesses are recorded under the acquisition method of accounting at their estimated fair values at the date of acquisition. Goodwill represents costs in excess of fair values assigned to the underlying identifiable net assets of acquired businesses.

Our goodwill balances were $13.6 billion and $10.9 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014. During 2015, our goodwill balance increased $2.7 billion, primarily as a result of $2.8 billion in preliminary goodwill recorded in connection with the Sikorsky acquisition. We perform an impairment test of our goodwill at least annually in the fourth quarter or more frequently whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of goodwill may be impaired. Such events or changes in circumstances may include a significant deterioration in overall economic conditions, changes in the business climate of our industry, a decline in our market capitalization, operating performance indicators, competition, reorganizations of our business, U.S. Government budget restrictions or the disposal of all or a portion of a reporting unit. Our goodwill has been allocated to and is tested for impairment at a level referred to as the reporting unit, which is our business segment level or a level below the business segment. The level at which we test goodwill for impairment requires us to determine whether the operations below the business segment constitute a self-sustaining business for which discrete financial information is available and segment management regularly reviews the operating results.

We may use both qualitative and quantitative approaches when testing goodwill for impairment. Under the qualitative approach for selected reporting units we perform a qualitative evaluation of events and circumstances impacting the reporting unit to determine the likelihood of goodwill impairment. Based on that qualitative evaluation, if we determine it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, no further evaluation is necessary. Otherwise we perform a quantitative two-step impairment test. For certain reporting units we only perform a quantitative impairment test.

Under step one of the quantitative two step impairment test, we compare the fair value of a reporting unit to its carrying value, including goodwill. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill of the reporting unit is not impaired. If the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, we then perform step two of the quantitative impairment test and compare the implied value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying value of its goodwill. The implied value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is calculated by creating a hypothetical balance sheet as if the reporting unit had just been acquired. This balance sheet contains all assets and liabilities recorded at fair value (including any assumed intangible assets that may not have any corresponding carrying value in our balance sheet). The implied value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is calculated by subtracting the fair value of the net assets from the fair value of the reporting unit. If the carrying value of the reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds the implied value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess.

We estimate the fair value of each reporting unit using a combination of a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis and market-based valuation methodologies such as comparable public company trading values and values observed in recent business acquisitions. Determining fair value requires the exercise of significant judgments, including the amount and timing of expected future cash flows, long-term growth rates, discount rates and relevant comparable public company earnings multiples and relevant transaction multiples. The cash flows employed in the DCF analyses are based on our best estimate of future sales, earnings and cash flows after considering factors such as general market conditions, U.S. Government budgets, existing firm orders, expected future orders, contracts with suppliers, labor agreements, changes in working capital, long term business plans and recent operating performance. The discount rates utilized in the DCF analysis are based on the respective reporting unit’s weighted average cost of capital, which takes into account the relative weights of each component of capital structure (equity and debt) and represents the expected cost of new capital, adjusted as appropriate to consider the risk inherent in future cash flows of the respective reporting unit.

62

Table of Contents

The carrying value of each reporting unit includes the assets and liabilities employed in its operations, goodwill and allocations of amounts held at the business segment and corporate levels. Corporate allocations include our postretirement benefit plans liabilities, as determined in accordance with CAS, in order to align the basis of the carrying values with the determination of the fair values of our reporting units, which are measured using CAS pension cost. CAS pension cost is recovered through the pricing of our products and services on U.S. Government contracts and, therefore, affects the fair value of each reporting unit. The amount of CAS pension liability allocated to each reporting unit is significantly influenced by a number of factors, including the discount rate used to estimate the obligation. On August 8, 2014, the HATFA, and on November 2, 2015, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 was enacted, which extended the pension interest rate relief of the prior MAP-21. As a result, the interest rate used to calculate CAS pension costs recovered under our contracts with the U.S. Government increased with the resulting effect of decreasing the amount of CAS pension liability allocated to each reporting unit, contributing to an increase in the carrying value of each reporting unit.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test for each of our reporting units. In connection with our fourth quarter 2015 program realignment, goodwill was reallocated between affected reporting units on a relative fair value basis. We performed goodwill impairment tests prior and subsequent to the realignment. The results of our 2015 annual impairment tests of goodwill indicated that no impairment existed.

In the fourth quarter of 2014, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test for each of our reporting units. The results of these tests indicated that the estimated fair values of our reporting units exceeded their carrying values, with the exception of our Technical Services reporting unit within our IS&GS business segment. Technical Services, for which we recorded a $195 million goodwill impairment in 2013, experienced further declines in fair value during 2014. Technical Services which typically has smaller customer contracts of a shorter duration, has been adversely impacted by market pressures such as lower in-theater support as troop levels are drawn down and increased re-competition on existing contracts that are awarded primarily on the basis of price. As a result, we compared the implied value of that reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying value of its goodwill, and since the carrying value exceeded the implied value, we recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $119 million in the fourth quarter of 2014 equal to that differential.

As a result of the 2014 annual goodwill impairment test, our Civil reporting unit was considered at risk of future goodwill impairment due to market factors and because the fair value of the Civil reporting unit exceeded its carrying value by a margin of approximately 15%. The results of our 2015 annual goodwill impairment test indicated that our Civil reporting unit’s fair value was no longer considered at risk of future goodwill impairment due to an increase in assessed fair value.

Impairment assessments inherently involve management judgments regarding a number of assumptions such as those described above. Due to the many variables inherent in the estimation of a reporting unit’s fair value and the relative size of our recorded goodwill, differences in assumptions could have a material effect on the estimated fair value of one or more of our reporting units and could result in a goodwill impairment charge in a future period.

Intangible Assets

Intangible assets from acquired businesses are recognized at their estimated fair values at the date of acquisition and consist of customer programs, trademarks, customer relationships, technology and other intangible assets. Customer programs include values assigned to major programs of acquired businesses and represent the aggregate value associated with the customer relationships, contracts, technology and trademarks underlying the associated program. Acquired intangibles deemed to have indefinite lives are not amortized, but are subject to annual impairment testing. This testing compares carrying value to fair value and, when appropriate, the carrying value of these assets is reduced to fair value. Finite-lived intangibles are amortized to expense over the applicable useful lives, ranging from three to twenty years, based on the nature of the asset and the underlying pattern of economic benefit as reflected by future net cash inflows.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued a new standard that will change the way we recognize revenue and significantly expand the disclosure requirements for revenue arrangements. On July 9, 2015, the FASB approved a one-year deferral of the effective date of the standard to 2018 for public companies, with an option that would permit companies to adopt the standard in 2017. Early adoption prior to 2017 is not permitted. The new standard may be adopted either retrospectively or on a modified retrospective basis whereby the new standard would be applied to new contracts and existing contracts with remaining performance obligations as of the effective date, with a cumulative catch-up adjustment recorded to beginning retained earnings at the effective date for existing contracts with remaining performance

63

Table of Contents

obligations. In addition, the FASB is contemplating making additional changes to certain elements of the new standard. We are currently evaluating the methods of adoption allowed by the new standard and the effect the standard is expected to have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As the new standard will supersede substantially all existing revenue guidance affecting us under GAAP, it could impact revenue and cost recognition on thousands of contracts across all our business segments, in addition to our business processes and our information technology systems. As a result, our evaluation of the effect of the new standard will extend over future periods.

In September 2015, the FASB issued a new standard that simplifies the accounting for adjustments made to preliminary amounts recognized in a business combination by eliminating the requirement to retrospectively account for those adjustments. Instead, adjustments will be recognized in the period in which the adjustments are determined, including the effect on earnings of any amounts that would have been recorded in previous periods if the accounting had been completed at the acquisition date. We adopted the standard on January 1, 2016 and will prospectively apply the standard to business combination adjustments identified after the date of adoption.

In November 2015, the FASB issued a new standard that simplifies the presentation of deferred income taxes and requires that deferred tax assets and liabilities, as well as any related valuation allowance, be classified as noncurrent in our consolidated balance sheets. The standard is effective January 1, 2017, with early adoption permitted. The standard may be applied either prospectively from the date of adoption or retrospectively to all prior periods presented. We are currently evaluating when we will adopt the standard and the method of adoption.

We maintain active relationships with a broad and diverse group of U.S. and international financial institutions. We believe that they provide us with sufficient access to the general and trade credit we require to conduct our business. We continue to closely monitor the financial market environment and actively manage counterparty exposure to minimize the potential impact from adverse developments with any single credit provider while ensuring availability of, and access to, sufficient credit resources.

Our main exposure to market risk relates to interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and market prices on certain equity securities. Our financial instruments that are subject to interest rate risk principally include fixed-rate long-term debt. The estimated fair value of our outstanding debt was $16.5 billion at December 31, 2015 and the outstanding principal amount was $16.2 billion, excluding unamortized discounts and deferred financing costs of $1.0 billion. A 10% change in the level of interest rates would not have a material impact on the fair value of our outstanding debt at December 31, 2015.

We use derivative instruments principally to reduce our exposure to market risks from changes in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates. We do not enter into or hold derivative instruments for speculative trading purposes. We transact business globally and are subject to risks associated with changing foreign currency exchange rates. We enter into foreign currency hedges such as forward and option contracts that change in value as foreign currency exchange rates change. Our most significant foreign currency exposures relate to the British Pound Sterling and the Canadian Dollar. These contracts hedge forecasted foreign currency transactions in order to mitigate fluctuations in our earnings and cash flows associated with changes in foreign currency exchange rates. We designate foreign currency hedges as cash flow hedges. We also are exposed to the impact of interest rate changes primarily through our borrowing activities. For fixed rate borrowings, we may use variable interest rate swaps, effectively converting fixed rate borrowings to variable rate borrowings indexed to LIBOR in order to reduce the amount of interest paid. These swaps are designated as fair value hedges. For variable rate borrowings, we may use fixed interest rate swaps, effectively converting variable rate borrowings to fixed rate borrowings in order to mitigate the impact of interest rate changes on earnings. These swaps are designated as cash flow hedges. We also may enter into derivative instruments that are not designated as hedges and do not qualify for hedge accounting, which are intended to mitigate certain economic exposures.

The classification of gains and losses resulting from changes in the fair values of derivatives is dependent on our intended use of the derivative and its resulting designation. Adjustments to reflect changes in fair values of derivatives attributable to the effective portion of hedges are either reflected in earnings and largely offset by corresponding adjustments to the hedged items or reflected net of income taxes in accumulated other comprehensive loss until the hedged transaction is recognized in earnings. Changes in the fair value of the derivatives that are attributable to the ineffective portion of the hedges, or of derivatives that are not considered to be highly effective hedges, if any, are immediately recognized in earnings. The aggregate notional amount of our outstanding interest rate swaps at December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion. The aggregate notional amount of our outstanding foreign currency hedges at December 31, 2015 and 2014 was $4.1 billion and $804 million. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, the net fair value of our derivative instruments was not

64

Table of Contents

material (Note 15). A 10% appreciation or devaluation of the hedged currency as compared to the level of foreign exchange rates for currencies under contract at December 31, 2015 would not have a material impact on the aggregate net fair value of such contracts or our consolidated financial statements.

We evaluate the credit quality of potential counterparties to derivative transactions and only enter into agreements with those deemed to have acceptable credit risk at the time the agreements are executed. Our foreign currency exchange hedge portfolio is diversified across several banks. We periodically monitor changes to counterparty credit quality as well as our concentration of credit exposure to individual counterparties. We do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

We maintain a separate trust that includes investments to fund certain of our non-qualified deferred compensation plans. As of December 31, 2015, investments in the trust totaled $1.1 billion and are reflected at fair value on our Balance Sheet in other noncurrent assets. The trust holds investments in marketable equity securities and fixed-income securities that are exposed to price changes and changes in interest rates. A portion of the liabilities associated with the deferred compensation plans supported by the trust is also impacted by changes in the market price of our common stock and certain market indices. Changes in the value of the liabilities have the effect of partially offsetting the impact of changes in the value of the trust. Both the change in the fair value of the trust and the change in the value of the liabilities are recognized on our Statements of Earnings in other unallocated, net and were not material for the year ended December 31, 2015.

65

Table of Contents

Report of Ernst & Young LLP,

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,

on the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Lockheed Martin Corporation

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Lockheed Martin Corporation as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Lockheed Martin Corporation at December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Lockheed Martin Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (2013 framework) and our report dated February 24, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia

February 24, 2016

66

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statements of Earnings

(in millions, except per share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

67

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

(in millions)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.

68

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in millions, except par value)