LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP - Annual Report: 2016 (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, 2016

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 ☒    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 ☒

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 ☒    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 ☒    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.  ☐

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 ☒

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 24, 2016, was approximately $72.1 billion.

There were 290,315,668 shares of our common stock, $1 par value per share, outstanding as of January 27, 2017.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s 2017 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, 2016

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, system integration and cybersecurity 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 2016, 71% of our $47.2 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor (including 59% from the Department of Defense (DoD)), 27% were from international customers (including foreign military sales (FMS) contracted through the U.S. Government) and 2% were from U.S. commercial and other customers. Our main areas of focus are in defense, space, intelligence, and homeland security.

We operate in an environment characterized by 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 four business segments: Aeronautics, Missiles and Fire Control (MFC), Rotary and Mission Systems (RMS) and Space Systems. We organize our business segments based on the nature of the products and services offered.

Recent Developments

Divestiture of the Information Systems & Global Solutions Business

On August 16, 2016, we completed the divestiture of our Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS) business, which merged with a subsidiary of Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos), in a Reverse Morris Trust transaction. This transaction represents the culmination of the strategic review of our government information technology (IT) business and our technical services business performed in 2015 to explore whether the IS&GS business could achieve greater growth and create more value for customers and stockholders outside of Lockheed Martin. The IS&GS business generated annual net sales of $5.6 billion in 2015 and $3.4 billion in 2016 through the August 16, 2016 divestiture date. As part of the transaction, we also completed an exchange offer that resulted in a reduction of our common stock outstanding by approximately 9.4 million shares (approximately 3%). Based on an opinion of outside tax counsel, subject to customary qualifications and based on factual representations, both the exchange offer and merger will qualify as tax-free transactions to us and our stockholders, except to the extent that cash was paid to our stockholders in lieu of fractional shares. Additionally, we received a one-time special cash payment of $1.8 billion in connection with the divestiture of the IS&GS business. The operating results of the IS&GS business have been classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented. See “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about the divestiture of the IS&GS business.

AWE Management Limited

On August 24, 2016, our ownership interest in the AWE Management Limited (AWE) venture increased from 33% to 51% in exchange for our assuming a more significant role in managing the operations of the venture. AWE operates the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent program and generated net sales of about $1.5 billion and net earnings of about $85 million in 2015. As a result of the increase in ownership interest, we now hold a 51% controlling interest in AWE. Accordingly, we are required to consolidate AWE. AWE continues to be aligned under our Space Systems business segment. Prior to August 24, 2016, we accounted for our investment in AWE using the equity method of accounting. See “Note 3 –Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about the consolidation of AWE.

3

Table of Contents

Aeronautics

In 2016, our Aeronautics business segment generated net sales of $17.8 billion, which represented 38% 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 2016, U.S. Government customers accounted for 66% and international customers accounted for 34% of Aeronautics’ net sales. Net sales from Aeronautics’ combat aircraft products and services represented 28% of our total consolidated net sales in both 2016 and 2015, and 26% in 2014.

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 23% of our total consolidated net sales, as well as 62% of Aeronautics’ net sales in 2016. The F-35 program consists of development contracts, multiple production contracts, and sustainment activities. The development contracts are being performed concurrently 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 2016, we delivered 46 aircraft to our U.S. and international partners, resulting in total deliveries of 200 production aircraft as of December 31, 2016. We have 173 production aircraft in backlog as of December 31, 2016, including orders from our international partners. On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Government unilaterally definitized Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 9, which covers 57 aircraft. For additional information on the F-35 program, including a discussion of the unilateral contract action, 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 24 C-130J aircraft in 2016, including five to international customers. We have 88 aircraft in our backlog as of December 31, 2016 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 with deliveries of new aircraft planned through 2017. Aeronautics also provides service-life extension, modernization and other upgrade programs for our customers’ F-16 aircraft. We delivered 12 F-16 aircraft in 2016. As of December 31, 2016, we have eight F-16 aircraft in backlog with all deliveries expected in 2017. Although existing production contracts provide for deliveries of F-16 aircraft through late 2017, we continue to seek international opportunities to deliver additional aircraft beyond 2017. Aeronautics also provides service-life extension, modernization and other upgrade programs for our customers’ F-16 aircraft, with existing contracts continuing for several years.

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.

Aeronautics provides sustainment services for the existing U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy fleet and modernization activities to convert 52 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, 2016, we had delivered 41 C-5M aircraft under these modernization activities, including nine C-5M aircraft delivered in 2016. As of December 31, 2016, we have 11 C-5 aircraft in backlog with backlog extending into 2018.

4

Table of Contents

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.

Missiles and Fire Control

In 2016, our MFC business segment generated net sales of $6.6 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 2016, U.S. Government customers accounted for 61%, international customers accounted for 37% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 2% 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:

Rotary and Mission Systems

In 2016, our RMS business segment, previously known as Mission Systems and Training (MST), generated net sales of $13.5 billion, which represented 28% of our total consolidated net sales. RMS’ customers include the military services, principally the U.S. Army and Navy, and various government agencies of the U.S. and other countries, as well as commercial and other customers. In 2016, U.S. Government customers accounted for 68%, international customers accounted for 28% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 4% of RMS’ net sales.

RMS provides design, manufacture, service and support for a variety of military and commercial 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, RMS supports the needs of government 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 Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) and aligned it under our RMS business segment. Sikorsky is one of the world’s largest helicopter companies and designs, manufactures, services and supports military and commercial helicopters. Additionally, Sikorsky offers full-spectrum aftermarket service and support solutions to commercial and military customers worldwide.

5

Table of Contents

RMS’ major programs include:

Space Systems

In 2016, our Space Systems business segment generated net sales of $9.4 billion, which represented 20% of our total consolidated net sales. Space Systems’ customers include various U.S. government agencies and commercial customers. In 2016, U.S. Government customers accounted for 91%, international customers accounted for 5% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 4% of Space Systems’ net sales. Net sales from Space Systems’ satellite products and services represented 13%, 15% and 16% of our total consolidated net sales in 2016, 2015 and 2014.

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 space and ground 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’ other major programs include:

On August 24, 2016, we obtained a controlling interest in the AWE venture, and as a result, we are required to consolidate AWE. Previously, we accounted for our investment in AWE using the equity method of accounting. See “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about the consolidation of AWE. Operating profit for our Space Systems business segment also 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 2016, 2015, and 2014, 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” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

6

Table of Contents

Competition

Our broad portfolio of products and services competes both domestically and internationally against products and services of other large aerospace and defense companies, as well as numerous smaller competitors. 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 and increasingly what would have previously been competed as a single large procurement is being broken into multiple smaller procurements. 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. Technological advances in such areas as: additive manufacturing, cloud computing, advanced materials, autonomy, robotics, and big data and new business models such as commercial access to space are enabling new factors of competition for both traditional and non-traditional competitors.

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

Some 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.

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. 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, principally all branches of the U.S. military and NASA. We also contract with similar government authorities in other countries and they

7

Table of Contents

regulate our international efforts. Additionally, our commercial aircraft products are required to comply with U.S. and international regulations governing production and quality systems, airworthiness and installation approvals, repair procedures and continuing operational safety.

We must comply with, and are affected by, laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of U.S. Government and other governments’ contracts. These laws and regulations, among other things:

The U.S. Government and other governments 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 or other governments; however, the U.S. Government and other governments 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 and other governments’ 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. For more information on the risks of doing work internationally, see Item 1A – Risk Factors. Additionally, the U.S. Government may also enter into unilateral contract actions, which they recently did on the F-35 program. This can affect our ability to negotiate mutually agreeable contract terms.

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 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” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. See also the discussion of environmental matters within Item 1A – Risk Factors.

Backlog

At December 31, 2016, our backlog was $96.2 billion compared with $94.8 billion at December 31, 2015. Backlog at December 31, 2015 excludes $4.8 billion related to the IS&GS business, which we divested in 2016. Backlog is converted into sales in future periods as work is performed or deliveries are made. Approximately $34 billion, or 35%, of our backlog at December 31, 2016 is expected to be converted into sales in 2017.

8

Table of Contents

Our backlog includes both funded (firm orders for our products and services for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer) 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. Funded backlog was $66.0 billion at December 31, 2016, as compared to $67.6 billion at December 31, 2015. Funded backlog at December 31, 2015 excludes $3.1 billion related to the IS&GS business, which we divested in 2016. 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 $988 million in 2016, $817 million in 2015, and $733 million in 2014. See “Research and development and similar costs” in “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Employees

At December 31, 2016, we had approximately 97,000 employees, about 92% of whom were located in the U.S. Approximately 21% 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, 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.

9

Table of Contents

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 71% of our total net sales from the U.S. Government in 2016, including 59% 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.

There is also uncertainty regarding actions that may be taken by the new Presidential Administration in light of recent criticisms of the F-35 program and other large defense programs. President Trump has publicly expressed concerns over past cost overruns and delays in the program as well as overall program cost and has publicly requested that a competitor price out an alternative. Defense Secretary Mattis recently ordered a review of the program, including a comparison review of the F-35C carrier variant with a fourth generation alternative. Our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer has had discussions with President Trump on the importance of the F-35 program and our commitment to cut costs. However, we may continue to face pressure to reduce costs from the new Presidential Administration relating to the F-35 program and ongoing contract negotiations.

The F-35 is our largest program and represented 23% of our total net sales in 2016 and is expected to represent a higher percentage of our sales in future years. A decision to cut spending or reduce planned orders would have an adverse impact on our results of operations. 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, successfully negotiating and receiving funding for production contracts on a timely basis, executing future flight tests and findings resulting from testing and operating the aircraft. Additionally, the U.S. Government may also enter into unilateral contract actions, which they recently did on the F-35 program. This unilateral contract action obligates us to perform under terms and conditions imposed by the U.S. Government. Unilateral contract actions could negatively affect profit and cash flows, and establish a precedent for future contracts.

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 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.

10

Table of Contents

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, our employees, others working on our behalf, 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. The U.S. Government has the ability to decrease or withhold certain payments when it deems systems subject to its review to be inadequate. Additionally, any costs found to be misclassified may be subject to repayment. We have unaudited and/or 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.

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.

11

Table of Contents

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., 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 based upon the customer’s view of what our costs should be (as compared to our actual costs) may affect the predictability of our profit rates. The U.S. Government’s unilateral contract action definitizing the LRIP 9 F-35 contract reflected differing U.S. Government and Lockheed Martin views as to costs, entitlement to performance-based payments and profitability and could negatively impact the profitability and cash flows of LRIP 9, LRIP 10 (which remains an undefinitized contract) and future production contracts. 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-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 (including the LRIP 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 experiencing increased competition while, 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. 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

12

Table of Contents

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 and other multi-award contracts, which have 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. Additionally, the former IS&GS programs we moved to RMS and Space Systems in the fourth quarter of 2015 and retained could experience increased pricing pressures which could have a negative impact on our ability to win future follow-on contracts. 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 as might their inability to perform profitably in the current highly competitive and budget constrained environment. 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, according to specifications, or at all may affect our ability to perform our obligations and require that we transition the work to other companies. Contracting party performance deficiencies may result in additional costs or delays in product deliveries and 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 2016, 27% 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, taxation, 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 our increased ownership interest in AWE 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 2016, approximately 66% of our sales to international customers were FMS and about 34% 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

13

Table of Contents

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, we seek to price our products and services 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. 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, taxation, 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.

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

We routinely experience various cybersecurity threats, threats to our information technology infrastructure, unauthorized attempts to gain access to our company sensitive information, denial-of-service attacks, threats to the security of our facilities and employees, and threats from terrorist acts, as do our customers, suppliers, subcontractors and venture partners. We may experience similar security threats at customer sites that we operate and manage.

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.

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

14

Table of Contents

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 or identified but un-indemnified 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 noncontrolling 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, which includes the inability to influence strategic decisions that may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our joint ventures face many of the same risks and uncertainties as we do. The most significant impact of our equity investments is in our Space Systems business segment where approximately 25% of its 2016 operating profit was derived from its share of earnings from equity method investees, particularly that in United Launch Alliance (ULA). Approximately 3% and 7% of our Aeronautics and RMS business segments’ operating profit was derived from their shares of earnings from equity method investees, including their share in Advanced Military Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Center LLC venture (AMMROC).

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. 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, we may not be able to capture anticipated synergies, tax benefits, cost savings, and business opportunities in the time frame anticipated, or at all. Changes to the Federal statutory tax rate could have an impact on the tax benefits we expect in connection with the acquisition. Due to the recent acquisition and valuation, the carrying value and fair value of our Sikorsky reporting unit are currently closely aligned. Therefore, any business deterioration, contract cancelations or terminations, or market pressures could cause our sales, earnings and cash flows to decline below current projections and could cause goodwill to be impaired. Additionally, Sikorsky 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 their control.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls over financial reporting there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable and accurate financial statements and to effectively prevent fraud. As further described, in Part II Item 9A “Controls and Procedures” management has concluded that, because of a material weakness in internal controls within Sikorsky’s processes (specifically, Sikorsky did not adequately identify,

15

Table of Contents

design and implement appropriate process-level controls for its processes and appropriate information technology controls for its information technology systems), which we acquired on November 6, 2015 and which operates as a business unit of our RMS business segment, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of December 31, 2016. We have and we will continue to enhance our controls at our Sikorsky business unit and we expect that the remediation of this material weakness will be completed prior to the end of fiscal year 2017. However, we cannot be certain that these measures will be successful or that we will be able to prevent future significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. Material inaccuracies in our financial statements would impair their value to management and our Board of Directors in making decisions as to the operation of our business, could impair our reputation and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on investor confidence in our financial statements, the trading price of our stock and our access to capital.

The divestiture of our Information Systems & Global Solutions business may not achieve the intended benefits and may expose us to potential risks and liabilities.

We completed the divestiture of our IS&GS business on August 16, 2016, which merged with a subsidiary of Leidos Holdings Inc. (Leidos), in a Reverse Morris Trust transaction. As part of the transaction, we also completed an exchange offer that resulted in a reduction of our outstanding common stock. We undertook the divestiture because we believed that this business could achieve greater growth and create more value for customers and stockholders outside of Lockheed Martin and that we could benefit from greater strategic focus of our resources and management efforts. We may not benefit as expected from the increased focus on our core business, strategic programs and objectives made possible by the split-off or from the reduced exposure to a shorter product cycle services business. Additionally, the value of the transaction may also be reduced by potential liabilities related to post-closing adjustments and indemnities, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

If the divestiture of our Information Systems & Global Solutions business or certain internal transactions undertaken in anticipation of the divestiture are determined to be taxable in whole or in part, we and our stockholders may incur significant tax liabilities.

In connection with the divestiture of our IS&GS business, we obtained opinions of outside tax counsel that the merger and exchange offer will qualify as tax-free transactions to us and our stockholders, except to the extent that cash was paid to Lockheed Martin stockholders in lieu of fractional shares. We have not sought or obtained a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on each of the tax consequences of the transaction. An opinion of counsel is not binding on the IRS or the courts, which may disagree with the opinion. In addition, the tax opinions are subject to customary qualifications and based on factual representations. Even if the merger and exchange offer otherwise qualified as tax-free transactions, they may become taxable to us if certain events occur that affect either Lockheed Martin or Leidos. While Leidos has agreed not to take certain actions that could cause the transactions not to qualify as tax-free transactions and is generally obligated to indemnify us against any tax consequences if it breaches this agreement, the potential tax liabilities could have a material adverse effect on us if we were not entitled to indemnification or if the indemnification obligations were not fulfilled. If the merger or exchange offer were determined to be taxable, we could be subject to a substantial tax liability, and each U.S. holder of our common stock who participated in the exchange offer could be treated as exchanging the Lockheed Martin shares surrendered for Abacus shares in a taxable transaction.

There can be no assurance that we will continue to increase our dividend or to repurchase shares of our common stock at current levels.

The payment of cash dividends and share repurchases is subject to limitations under applicable law and the discretion of our Board of Directors and is determined in light of then current conditions, including earnings, other operating results and capital requirements. Decreases in asset values or increases in liabilities, including liabilities associated with benefit plans and assets and liabilities associated with taxes, can reduce stockholders’ equity. A deficit in stockholders’ equity could limit our ability to pay dividends and make share repurchases under Maryland Law in the future. In addition, the timing and amount of share repurchases under board approved share repurchase plans is within the discretion of management and will depend on many factors, including results of operations, capital requirements as well as applicable law.

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

16

Table of Contents

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 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 impact the plans may have on our cash flows and earnings, including amendments made in June 2014 to a significant portion 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 as 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” included in our Notes to 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 remediation at some of our facilities, some of our former facilities, and at

17

Table of Contents

third-party-owned sites 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 and have managed various U.S. Government-owned facilities, and portions of U.S. Government-owned facilities, on behalf of the U.S. Government. At such facilities, environmental compliance and remediation costs historically have been the responsibility of the U.S. Government. We have relied, and continue to rely with respect to past practices, upon U.S. Government funding to pay such costs, notwithstanding efforts by some U.S. Government representatives to limit this responsibility. Although the U.S. 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 U.S. 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, continually evolving governmental environmental standards and cost allowability issues, including varying efforts by the U.S. Government to limit allowability of our costs in resolving liability at third party-owned sites. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or cleanup to the extent probable and estimable, see “Critical Accounting Policies –Environmental Matters” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and “Note 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 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” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to develop new products and technologies and maintain a qualified workforce.

Many of the products and services we provide are highly engineered and involve sophisticated technologies, with related complex manufacturing and system integration processes. Our customers’ requirements change and evolve regularly. Accordingly, our future performance depends, in part, on our ability to identify emerging technological trends, develop and manufacture innovative products and service and bring those offerings to market quickly at cost-effective prices.

Additionally, 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 is 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 as our workforce ages, our 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. The freeze takes place in two stages and will be completed January 1, 2020.

18

Table of Contents

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 21% 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. For significant acquisitions we may use a one-year measurement period to 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. Another example is the $10.8 billion of goodwill assets recorded on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016 from previous acquisitions, which represents approximately 23% of our total assets. These goodwill assets are subject to annual impairment testing and more frequent testing upon the occurrence of certain 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.

Future 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, 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, 2016 and 2015 were $6.6 billion and $6.1 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 15% had been enacted at December 31, 2016, our net deferred tax assets would have been reduced by $3.8 billion and we would have recorded a corresponding one-time, non-cash increase in income tax expense of $3.8 billion. This additional expense would be less if the legislation phased in the tax rate reduction or if the final rate was higher than 15%. 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.

Actual financial results could differ from our judgments and estimates. See “Critical Accounting Policies” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a complete discussion of our significant accounting policies and use of estimates.

None.

19

Table of Contents

At December 31, 2016, we owned or leased building space (including offices, manufacturing plants, warehouses, service centers, laboratories and other facilities) at approximately 400 locations primarily in the U.S. Additionally, we manage or occupy various Government-owned facilities under lease and other arrangements.

At December 31, 2016, we had significant operations in the following locations:

In connection with the increase in ownership interest of AWE Management Limited, we assumed 5.8 million square feet of Government-owned floor space. As a result of our divestiture of the IS&GS business, we reduced our owned and leased floor space by 3.4 million square feet.

The following is a summary of our square feet of floor space by business segment at December 31, 2016 (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.

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” included in our Notes to 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” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

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.

20

Table of Contents

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.

21

Table of Contents

Our executive officers as of February 9, 2017 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 58), 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; and President, Information Systems & Global Solutions – Security from January 2011 to June 2012.

Dale P. Bennett (age 60), Executive Vice President – Rotary and Mission Systems

Mr. Bennett has served as Executive Vice President of Rotary and Mission Systems since December 2012. He previously served as President, Mission Systems & Sensors from August 2011 to December 2012.

Orlando P. Carvalho (age 58), 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.

Brian P. Colan (age 56), 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.

Richard H. Edwards (age 60), 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 63), 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 over 30 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; and Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems from January 2010 to November 2012.

Maryanne R. Lavan (age 57), 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.

John W. Mollard (age 59), Vice President and Treasurer

Mr. Mollard has served as Vice President and Treasurer since April 2016. He previously served as Vice President, Corporate Financial Planning and Analysis from 2003 to April 2016.

Bruce L. Tanner (age 57), Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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

22

Table of Contents

PART II

At January 27, 2017, we had 28,697 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 high and low reported sales prices of Lockheed Martin common stock 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, 2011 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 Arconic Inc., General Dynamics Corporation, L3 Technologies, Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Raytheon Company, Rockwell Collins, Inc., Textron Inc., The Boeing Company, Transdigm Group Inc., 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.

23

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 Exchange Act during the quarter ended December 31, 2016.

24

Table of Contents

The operating results of the IS&GS business have been classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented and the assets and liabilities of the IS&GS business have been classified as assets and liabilities of discontinued operations for all periods presented. However, the cash flows generated by the IS&GS business have not been reclassified in our cash flow information as we retained the cash as part of the divestiture of the IS&GS business. See “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about the divestiture of the IS&GS business.

25

Table of Contents

26

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, system integration and cybersecurity 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 2016, 71% of our $47.2 billion in net sales were from the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor (including 59% from the Department of Defense (DoD)), 27% were from international customers (including foreign military sales (FMS) contracted through the U.S. Government) and 2% 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 four business segments: Aeronautics, Missiles and Fire Control (MFC), Rotary and Mission Systems (RMS) 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.

We expect 2017 net sales will increase in the mid-single digit range from 2016 levels. The projected growth is driven by increased production and sustainment volume on the F-35 program at Aeronautics as well as increased volume at MFC and RMS, partially offset by decreased volume at Space Systems. Operating profit margin is expected to decline from 2016 levels primarily driven by higher volume on the F-35 program, which is dilutive to our overall profit margin, contract mix at MFC, lower AWE Management Limited (AWE) earnings as a result of the non-cash gain recognized in 2016 related the consolidation of AWE, amortization of AWE intangible assets in 2017 and lower equity earnings at Space Systems. Accordingly, we expect 2017 segment operating profit margin will decline from our 2016 margin to just above 10%. Our outlook for 2017 assumes the U.S. Government continues to support and fund our key programs, consistent with the government fiscal year (GFY) 2017 budget. Changes in circumstances may require us to revise our assumptions, which could materially change our current estimate of 2017 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” discussion below.

We expect the 2017 FAS/CAS pension adjustment to be approximately $880 million, which incorporates a year end 2016 discount rate of 4.125%, a 25 basis point decrease from the end of 2015; an actual investment return during 2016 of approximately 5.0%; a 50 basis point reduction in our long-term rate of return assumption from 8.00% to 7.50%; and the revised longevity assumptions released on October 20, 2016 by the Society of Actuaries. We do not expect to make contributions to our legacy qualified defined benefit pension plans in 2017.

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 consolidated statements of cash flows.

27

Table of Contents

Business Developments

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 RMS 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. Calculated using the Federal Statutory income tax rate, this election generates a cash tax benefit with an estimated net present value at the date of acquisition of $1.9 billion for us and our stockholders. The 2015 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’s operations. See “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” included within “Liquidity and Cash Flows” discussion below and “Note 10 – Debt” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of the debt we incurred in connection with the Sikorsky acquisition.

Divestiture of the Information Systems & Global Solutions Business

On August 16, 2016, we completed the previously announced divestiture of the IS&GS business, which merged with a subsidiary of Leidos, in a Reverse Morris Trust transaction (the “Transaction”). The Transaction was completed in a multi-step process pursuant to which we initially contributed the IS&GS business to Abacus Innovations Corporation (Abacus), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin created to facilitate the Transaction, and the common stock of Abacus was distributed to participating Lockheed Martin stockholders through an exchange offer. Under the terms of the exchange offer, Lockheed Martin stockholders had the option to exchange shares of Lockheed Martin common stock for shares of Abacus common stock. At the conclusion of the exchange offer, all shares of Abacus common stock were exchanged for 9,369,694 shares of Lockheed Martin common stock held by Lockheed Martin stockholders that elected to participate in the exchange. The shares of Lockheed Martin common stock that were exchanged and accepted were retired, reducing the number of shares of our common stock outstanding by approximately 3%. Following the exchange offer, Abacus merged with a subsidiary of Leidos, with Abacus continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Leidos. As part of the merger, each share of Abacus common stock was automatically converted into one share of Leidos common stock. We did not receive any shares of Leidos common stock as part of the Transaction and do not hold any shares of Leidos or Abacus common stock following the Transaction. Based on an opinion of outside tax counsel, subject to customary qualifications and based on factual representations, both the exchange offer and merger will qualify as tax-free transactions to Lockheed Martin and its stockholders, except to the extent that cash was paid to Lockheed Martin stockholders in lieu of fractional shares.

In connection with the Transaction, Abacus borrowed an aggregate principal amount of approximately $1.84 billion under term loan facilities with third party financial institutions, the proceeds of which were used to make a one-time special cash payment of $1.80 billion to Lockheed Martin and to pay associated borrowing fees and expenses. The entire special cash payment was used to repay debt, pay dividends and repurchase stock in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. The obligations under the Abacus term loan facilities were guaranteed by Leidos as part of the Transaction.

As a result of the Transaction, we recognized a net gain of approximately $1.2 billion. The net gain represents the $2.5 billion fair value of the shares of Lockheed Martin common stock exchanged and retired as part of the exchange offer, plus the $1.8 billion one-time special cash payment, less the net book value of the IS&GS business of about $3.0 billion at August 16, 2016 and other adjustments of about $100 million. The final gain is subject to certain post-closing adjustments, including final working capital and tax adjustments, which we expect to complete in 2017.

We classified the operating results of the IS&GS business as discontinued operations in our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP, as the divestiture of this business represented a strategic shift that had a major effect on our operations and financial results. However, the cash flows generated by the IS&GS business have not been reclassified in our consolidated statements of cash flows as we retained this cash as part of the Transaction.

Other

On August 24, 2016, our ownership interest in the AWE venture increased by 18% in exchange for our assuming a more significant role in managing the operations of the venture. As a result of the increase, we now own a 51% interest in AWE

28

Table of Contents

and control its operations and board of directors. Accordingly, we are required to consolidate AWE, which has been aligned under our Space Systems business segment since August 24, 2016. Space Systems’ operating results include 100% of AWE’s net sales and 51% of AWE’s operating profit. Previously, we accounted for our investment in AWE using the equity method of accounting. Under the equity method, none of AWE’s net sales and only 33% of AWE’s net earnings were included in operating profit of the Space Systems business segment.

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

For additional information, see “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Industry Considerations

U.S. Government Funding Constraints

The U.S. Government has not yet passed an annual budget for Government Fiscal Year (GFY) 2017. Accordingly, the U.S. Government is currently operating under a continuing resolution funding measure through April 28, 2017. Under this continuing resolution, partial-year funding at amounts consistent with appropriated levels for fiscal year 2016 are available, subject to certain restrictions, however, new spending initiatives are not authorized. Our key programs continue to be supported and funded despite the continuing resolution financing mechanism. However, during periods covered by continuing resolutions, or until regular annual appropriation bills are passed, we may experience delays in procurement of products and services due to lack of funding and those delays may affect our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

During 2016, President Obama’s Administration and both houses of Congress proposed budget plans for GFY 2017 that were broadly divergent in how they would be implemented, but set overall national defense spending limits at amounts consistent with the current limit imposed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Significant differences remain in the various proposed budgets’ funding sources and the potential use of overseas continuing operations funds for additional DoD-based budget. While we cannot predict budget resolution timing, we are hopeful that congressional deliberations can be concluded as soon as possible. A substantial delay would require an extension of the continuing resolution to enable continuation of government operations beyond April 28, 2017. While we think it is unlikely, a continuing resolution and its associated budget constraints could be extended for the full 2017 fiscal year should the varying budget positions remain unresolved. In the event of a full year continuing resolution, we would anticipate some level of impact against our 2017 orders and associated backlog level, but minimal impact to sales, earnings and cash flows in 2017 as a large portion of our backlog work is already funded from prior fiscal years, or we could face a government shutdown of unknown duration.

We anticipate there will continue to be a significant amount of debate and negotiations within the U.S. Government over defense spending for GFY 2017 and beyond. In the context of these negotiations, it is possible that existing cuts to government programs could be kept in place, replaced with different spending cuts, and/or replaced with a package of broader reforms to reduce the federal deficit. 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.

International Business

A key component of our strategic plan is to grow our international sales. To accomplish this growth, we continue to focus on strengthening our relationships internationally through partnerships and joint technology efforts. We conduct business with international customers through each of our business segments.

In our Aeronautics business segment, there continues to be strong international interest in the F-35 program, which includes commitments from the U.S. Government and eight international partner countries and three international customers,

29

Table of Contents

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 commitment to the program continues to grow. For example, Denmark formally committed in 2016 to 27 F-35A variant aircraft. Japan received its first F-35A variant and two F-35A variant aircraft arrived in Israel. Additionally in 2016, Aeronautics received an undefinitized contract modification to the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 10 advance acquisition contract, which included 35 international orders.

Other areas of international expansion at our Aeronautics business segment include the F-16 and C-130J programs. Aeronautics received a contract in 2016 with Korea for F-16 upgrades, extending work beyond 2020. The C-130J Super Hercules aircraft continued to draw interest from various international customers, including contracts in 2016 from France and Israel.

Our MFC business segment continues to generate significant international interest, most notably in the air and missile defense product line, which produces the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems. The PAC-3 is an advanced missile defense system designed to intercept incoming airborne threats. During 2016, we received orders for PAC-3 systems from Qatar, the Republic of Korea, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). THAAD is an integrated system designed to protect against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. UAE is an international customer for THAAD, and 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 2016, Poland became the first international customer for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), a long range, conventional air-to-ground, precision-guided standoff missile. Other MFC international customers include Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Taiwan and Kuwait.

In our RMS 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 12 Halifax-class frigates. In 2016, we were designated as the combat systems integrator for Australia’s Future Submarine program. In our training and logistics solutions portfolio, we have active programs and pursuits in the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Singapore and Australia. Our acquisition of Sikorsky adds a significant international component to the RMS business segment with an installed base of over 1,000 aircraft internationally. We have active development, production and sustainment support of the S-70i Black Hawk and MH-60 Seahawk aircraft to foreign military customers, including Chile, Australia, Denmark, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia. Commercial aircraft are sold to customers in the oil and gas industry, emergency medical evacuation, search and rescue fleets in over 30 countries, and VIP customers.

Our Space Systems business segment includes the operations of AWE, which operates the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent program. The work at AWE covers the entire life cycle, from initial concept, assessment and design, through component manufacture and assembly, in-service support and decommissioning and disposal. In addition, Space Systems has international contracts with Saudi Arabia and Japan to design and manufacture geostationary communication satellites using the A2100 satellite platform.

Status of the F-35 Program

The F-35 program consists of development contracts, 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 U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy; commitments from our eight international partners and three international customers; as well as expressions of interest from other countries.

On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Government unilaterally issued a contract (referred to as LRIP 9) to purchase 57 F-35 aircraft, including 42 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant (F-35A) aircraft at a production price that is 5.5% less than the production price for the F-35A variant in its previous contract to acquire F-35 aircraft (referred to as LRIP 8). The unilateral contract action obligates us to perform under terms and conditions imposed by the U.S. Government. At the time of the U.S. Government’s decision to issue the unilateral contract, the parties had reached agreement in principle on

30

Table of Contents

certain terms and conditions of the contract. However, certain key terms remained under negotiation, including the amount of cost to perform the contract, price and payment terms. We will continue to execute on the F-35 program and are evaluating our options and path forward. Although the amount at issue on the LRIP 9 contract is not a significant percentage of the overall contract value, the unilateral contract action could negatively affect profit and cash flows on the LRIP 9 and LRIP 10 (which remains undefinitized) contracts, and establish a precedent for future F-35 production contracts.

There is also uncertainty regarding actions that may be taken by the new Presidential Administration in light of recent criticisms of the F-35 program. President Trump has publicly expressed concerns over past cost overruns and delays in the program as well as overall program cost and has publicly requested that a competitor price out an alternative. Defense Secretary Mattis recently ordered a review of the program, including a comparison review of the F-35C carrier variant with a fourth generation alternative. Our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer has had discussions with President Trump on the importance of the F-35 program and our commitment to cut costs. However, we may continue to face pressure to reduce costs from the new Presidential Administration relating to the F-35 program and ongoing contract negotiations.

Operationally, the U.S. Government continues to complete various tests, including ship trials, mission system evaluations and weapons testing, and the F-35 aircraft fleet recently surpassed 80,000 flight hours. Progress also continues on the production of aircraft. In 2016, the program achieved a major milestone when the U.S. Air Force declared the F-35A variant ready for combat (also referred to as Initial Operating Capability (IOC)). The program continues to advance towards the U.S. Navy declaring the F-35C carrier variant ready for combat in 2018, as demonstrated by completing final carrier tests aboard the USS George Washington in 2016. Additionally, in 2016 we had initial deliveries of F-35 aircraft to Israel and Japan. As of December 31, 2016, we have delivered 200 production aircraft to our U.S. and international partners including delivery of the first F-35 aircraft completed at the Italian Final Assembly and Check-Out Facility, and we have 173 production aircraft in backlog, including orders from our international partners.

During aircraft inspections in 2016, debris was found in the fuel tank of an F-35A variant aircraft. It was determined the debris was caused by insulation shedding from tubing that is part of the system that provides cooling for the electronics and avionics and is located within the wing. Engineering assessments determined the tube assembly was wrapped using non-compliant insulation material. The non-compliant insulation was confined to only the F-35A variant aircraft. This issue affected 15 delivered aircraft and 42 aircraft in the factory. During the fourth quarter of 2016, modification work was completed to correct the issue on the 15 operational aircraft and flight operations have resumed. The issue was also corrected on many of the aircraft in the factory prior to delivery. The remaining affected aircraft will be corrected and delivered in 2017. This issue did not have a significant impact on our operating results or cash flows.

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.

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.

31

Table of Contents

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 each of our business segments and most of our service sales are generated in our RMS and Aeronautics 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.

Product Sales

Product sales increased $5.5 billion, or 16%, in 2016 as compared to 2015. The increase was primarily due to higher product sales of about $3.7 billion at RMS and approximately $1.8 billion at Aeronautics. The increase in product sales at RMS was primarily attributable to sales from Sikorsky, which was acquired in the fourth quarter of 2015. This increase was partially offset by lower net sales for training and logistics programs due to the divestiture of our Lockheed Martin Commercial Flight Training (LMCFT) business, which reported sales through the May 2, 2016 divestiture date. The increase at Aeronautics was primarily attributable to the F-35 program due to increased volume on aircraft production and the C-130 program due to increased aircraft deliveries.

32

Table of Contents

Product sales decreased $116 million, or less than 1%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. Lower product sales of about $290 million at Space Systems and approximately $250 million at MFC were partially offset by higher product sales of about $300 million at RMS 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 increase in product sales at RMS 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.

Service Sales

Service sales increased $1.2 billion, or 21%, in 2016 as compared to 2015, primarily due to an increase in service sales of about $700 million at RMS and approximately $360 million at Aeronautics. The increase in service sales at RMS was primarily attributable to sales from Sikorsky, which was acquired in the fourth quarter of 2015. The increase in service sales at Aeronautics was primarily attributable to increased sustainment activities (primarily the F-35 and F-16 programs).

Service sales increased $706 million, or 14%, 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 the F-35 program). The increase in service sales at Space Systems was primarily due to service sales of entities acquired in the third quarter of 2014.

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 $5.5 billion, or 18%, in 2016 as compared to 2015. The increase was primarily due to increased product costs of about $3.6 billion at RMS and about $1.6 billion at Aeronautics. The increase at RMS was primarily attributable to product costs generated by Sikorsky, which was acquired in the fourth quarter of 2015. The increase at Aeronautics was primarily attributable to increased volume on aircraft production for the F-35 program and increased aircraft deliveries on the C-130 program.

Product costs increased approximately $108 million, or less than 1%, in 2015 as compared to 2014. Increased product costs of approximately $445 million at RMS and about $180 million at Aeronautics, were offset by decreases in product costs of approximately $325 million at Space Systems and $195 million at MFC. Increases in product costs at RMS were due primarily to the Sikorsky acquisition, including costs of Sikorsky products, intangible amortization and adjustments required

33

Table of Contents

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 and MFC were attributable to the reasons stated above for higher product sales.

Service Costs

Service costs increased approximately $1.2 billion, or 25%, in 2016 compared to 2015, primarily due to increased service costs of about $670 million at RMS and approximately $400 million at Aeronautics. The increase at RMS was primarily attributable to service costs generated by Sikorsky, which was acquired in the fourth quarter of 2015. The increase at Aeronautics was primarily attributable to increased sustainment activities (primarily the F-35 and the F-22 programs).

Service costs increased approximately $640 million, or 15%, 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.

Restructuring Charges

2016 Actions

During 2016, we recorded severance charges totaling approximately $80 million related to our Aeronautics business segment. The charges consisted of severance costs associated with the planned elimination of certain positions through either voluntary or involuntary actions. Upon separation, terminated employees 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. During 2016, we paid $70 million in severance payments associated with these actions.

2015 Actions

During 2015, we recorded severance charges totaling $82 million, of which $67 million related to our RMS business segment and $15 million related to businesses that were reported in our former IS&GS business prior to our fourth quarter 2015 program realignment. The charges consisted of severance costs associated with the planned elimination of certain positions through either voluntary or involuntary actions. Upon separation, terminated employees 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. During 2016, we paid $64 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. Net of amounts we anticipate to recover through the pricing of our products and services to our customers, we incurred and paid $40 million of costs in 2016 related to these actions.

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 in future periods, with the impact included in the respective business segment’s results of operations.

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 $550 million of income in 2016, compared to expense of $47 million in 2015 and $96 million in 2014.

The fluctuation between each respective period was primarily attributable to the change in the FAS/CAS pension adjustment of $902 million in 2016, $400 million in 2015 and $317 million in 2014, 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 was primarily attributable to the increase in U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) pension cost due to the impact of phasing in CAS Harmonization. See “Critical Accounting Policies –Postretirement Benefit Plans” discussion below for more information on our CAS pension cost.

As a result of the divestiture of the IS&GS business, we retained all assets and obligations related to pension benefits earned by current and former IS&GS business salaried employees through the closing of the Transaction. Pension costs were

34

Table of Contents

historically allocated to and included in the results of operations of the IS&GS business. In connection with the reclassification of the IS&GS business as discontinued operations, we reclassified the non-service portion of net pension costs related to IS&GS business salaried employee benefits (interest cost, actuarial gains and losses and expected return on plan assets) from cost of sales (and previously reported in the IS&GS business’ operating profit) to other unallocated, net on our consolidated statements of earnings as corporate expenses because these costs will continue to be incurred by us subsequent to the Transaction. The service portion of net pension costs related to IS&GS business salaried employees that transferred to Leidos continued to be included in the operating results of the IS&GS business classified as discontinued operations because such costs will no longer be incurred by us subsequent to the Transaction. These net pension costs were $54 million, $71 million and $59 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

In connection with the divestiture of the IS&GS business and reclassification of the IS&GS business to discontinued operations for all periods presented in the consolidated financial statements, certain corporate overhead costs incurred by us and previously allocated to the IS&GS business were reclassified from the IS&GS business results (which is recorded in net earnings from discontinued operations) to other unallocated, net in our consolidated statements of earnings. These overhead costs related to expenses for senior management, legal, human resources, finance, accounting, treasury, tax, information technology, communications, ethics and compliance, corporate employee benefits, incentives and stock-based compensation, shared services processing and administration and depreciation for corporate fixed assets, and were not directly attributable to the IS&GS business. During the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 we reclassified $82 million, $165 million and $169 million of corporate overhead costs to other unallocated, net.

We allocate certain corporate overhead costs and defined benefit pension costs to our business segments because under U.S. Government contracting regulations such costs are allowable in establishing prices for contracts with the U.S. Government. Although the corporate overhead costs and defined benefit pension costs that were historically allocated to and included in the operating results of the IS&GS business have been reclassified to and included in the results of our continuing operations for financial reporting purposes, we will allocate similar costs incurred in future periods to our remaining business segments and expect to recover a substantial amount of these costs through the pricing of our products and services to the U.S. Government and other customers in future periods.

Other Income, Net

Other income, net primarily includes our share of earnings or losses from equity method investees and gains or losses for acquisitions and divestitures. Other income, net in 2016 was $487 million, compared to $220 million in 2015 and $329 million in 2014. The increase in 2016, compared to 2015, was primarily attributable to the non-cash net gain of $104 million associated with obtaining a controlling interest in AWE and approximately $120 million of increased earnings generated by equity method investees as discussed in the “Business Segment Results of Operations” section below. Additionally, in 2015 we incurred a $90 million non-cash impairment charge related to our decision in 2015 to divest our LMCFT business.

The decrease in 2015, compared to 2014, was primarily due to a $90 million non-cash impairment charge related to our decision in 2015 to divest our LMCFT business and non-recoverable transaction costs of approximately $38 million associated with the Sikorsky acquisition, 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 from Sikorsky equity method investees).

Interest Expense

Interest expense in 2016 was $663 million, compared to $443 million in 2015 and $340 million in 2014. The increases in interest expense in 2016 and 2015 relate 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” included within “Liquidity and Cash Flows” discussion below and “Note 10 – Debt” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of our debt.

Other Non-Operating Income, Net

Other non-operating income, net decreased $30 million from 2015 to 2016 primarily due to a gain from the sale of an investment in 2015 which did not recur in 2016. Other non-operating income, net increased $25 million from 2014 to 2015 due to a gain from the sale of an investment in 2015.

35

Table of Contents

Income Tax Expense

Our effective income tax rate from continuing operations was 23.2% for 2016, 27.3% for 2015, and 30.4% for 2014. 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 U.S. research and development (R&D) tax credit. The U.S. manufacturing deduction benefit for 2016, 2015, and 2014 reduced our effective tax rate by 2.4, 2.9, and 2.6 percentage points, respectively. The rate for 2016 also benefited from the nontaxable gain recorded in connection with the consolidation of AWE.

In addition, the rate for 2016 benefited from the additional tax benefits related to employee share-based payment awards, which are now recorded in earnings as income tax benefit or expense, effective with the adoption of an accounting standard update during the second quarter of 2016. As a result, we are required to report the impacts as though the accounting standard update had been adopted on January 1, 2016. Accordingly, we recognized additional income tax benefits of $152 million during the year ended December 31, 2016, which reduced our effective income tax rate by 3.1 percentage points. The adjustment for the year ended December 31, 2016 includes second, third, and fourth quarter impacts and the reclassification of income tax benefits of $104 million originally recognized in additional paid-in capital in the first quarter of 2016.

In 2016, the R&D tax credit reduced our effective tax rate by 2.2 percentage points. In December 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 1.6 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.

As a result of a decision in 2015 to divest our LMCFT business 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 our effective income tax rate by 1.2 percentage points in 2015.

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, 2016 and 2015 were $6.6 billion and $6.1 billion, based on a 35% the Federal statutory income tax rate, and primarily relate to our postretirement benefit plans. If legislation reducing the Federal statutory income tax rate to 15% had been enacted at December 31, 2016, our net deferred tax assets would have been reduced by $3.8 billion and we would have recorded a corresponding one-time, non-cash increase in income tax expense of $3.8 billion. This additional expense would be less if the legislation phased in the tax rate reduction or if the final rate was higher than 15%. 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 $3.8 billion ($12.38 per share) in 2016, $3.1 billion ($9.93 per share) in 2015 and $3.3 billion ($10.09 per share) in 2014. 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 14 million common shares outstanding from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and approximately 11 million common shares outstanding from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015 as a result of share repurchases and the completion of the exchange offer, which were partially offset by share issuance under our stock-based awards and certain defined contribution plans.

Net Earnings from Discontinued Operations

We reported net earnings from discontinued operations of $1.5 billion ($5.11 per share) in 2016, $479 million ($1.53 per share) in 2015 and $361 million ($1.12 per share) in 2014. Net earnings from discontinued operations in 2016 included a net gain of approximately $1.2 billion recognized as a result of the divestiture of the IS&GS business.

Net Earnings

We reported net earnings of $5.3 billion ($17.49 per share) in 2016, $3.6 billion ($11.46 per share) in 2015 and $3.6 billion ($11.21 per share) in 2014.

36

Table of Contents

Business Segment Results of Operations

We operate in four business segments: Aeronautics, MFC, RMS 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 include the results of the acquired Sikorsky business from the November 6, 2015 acquisition date.

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 one of our largest equity method investees. 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 (see “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) and significant severance actions (see “Note 15 – Restructuring Charges” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements); gains or losses from divestitures (see “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements); 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 2016, 2015 and 2014, we have a favorable FAS/CAS pension adjustment.

The operating results in the following tables exclude businesses included in discontinued operations (see “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements) for all years presented.

37

Table of Contents

Summary operating results for each of our business segments were as follows (in millions):

The following segment discussions also include information relating to backlog for each segment. Backlog was approximately $96.2 billion, $94.8 billion and $74.5 billion at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014. Backlog at December 31, 2015 and 2014 excludes approximately $4.8 billion and $6.0 billion of backlog related to our IS&GS business, which we divested in 2016. These amounts included both funded backlog (firm orders for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer) 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 $66.0 billion at December 31, 2016.

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

38

Table of Contents

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.

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.

We have a contract to provide an integrated air and missile defense command, control, communications, computers –Integrated Surveillance & Reconnaissance (C4ISR) system to an international customer. In the first quarter of 2015, we revised our estimated costs to complete the program as a consequence of performance issues and recorded a reserve of

39

Table of Contents

$70 million. Since that time, we have continued to experience issues related to customer requirements and the implementation of this contract and have periodically accrued additional reserves. Consequently, we are continuing to monitor the scope, estimated costs, and viability of the program and the possibility of additional customer funding. It is possible that we may have to record additional loss reserves in future periods, which could be material to our operating results. However, we cannot make an estimate of the total expected costs at this time due to uncertainties inherent in the estimation process.

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 $1.5 billion, $1.7 billion and $1.6 billion for 2016, 2015 and 2014. The decrease in our consolidated net adjustments in 2016 compared to 2015 was primarily due to a decrease in profit booking rate adjustments at our MFC and Space Systems business segments, partially offset by an increase at our RMS business segment. 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 and Aeronautics business segments, offset by a decrease in profit booking rate adjustments at our RMS and MFC business segments. The consolidated net adjustments for 2016 are inclusive of approximately $530 million in unfavorable items, which include reserves for performance matters on an international program at RMS. The consolidated net adjustments for 2015 are inclusive of approximately $550 million in unfavorable items, which include reserves for performance matters on an international program at RMS and on commercial satellite programs at Space Systems. The consolidated net adjustments for 2014 are inclusive of approximately $535 million in unfavorable items, which include reserves recorded on certain training and logistics solutions programs at RMS 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.

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):

2016 compared to 2015

Aeronautics’ net sales in 2016 increased $2.2 billion, or 14%, compared to 2015. The increase was attributable to higher net sales of approximately $1.7 billion for the F-35 program due to increased volume on aircraft production and sustainment activities, partially offset by lower volume on development activities; and approximately $290 million for the C-130 program due to increased deliveries (24 aircraft delivered in 2016 compared to 21 in 2015) and increased sustainment activities; and approximately $250 million for the F-16 program primarily due to higher volume on aircraft modernization programs. The increases were partially offset by lower net sales of approximately $55 million for the C-5 program due to decreased sustainment activities.

Aeronautics’ operating profit in 2016 increased $206 million, or 12%, compared to 2015. Operating profit increased approximately $195 million for the F-35 program due to increased volume on aircraft production and sustainment activities and higher risk retirements; and by approximately $60 million for aircraft support and maintenance programs due to higher risk retirements and increased volume. These increases were partially offset by lower operating profit of approximately $65 million for the C-130 program due to contract mix and lower risk retirements. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments, were approximately $20 million higher in 2016 compared to 2015.

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

40

Table of Contents

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.

Backlog

Backlog increased in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to higher orders on F-35 production and sustainment programs. Backlog increased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to higher orders on F-35 and C-130 programs.

Trends

We expect Aeronautics’ 2017 net sales to increase in the low-double digit percentage range as compared to 2016 due to increased volume on the F-35 program. Operating profit is expected to increase at a slightly lower percentage range, driven by the increased volume on the F-35 program, partially offset by contract mix that results in a slight decrease in operating margins between years.

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 Special Operations Forces Contractor Logistics Support Services (SOF CLSS). In 2016 we submitted a bid for the Special Operations Forces Global Logistics Support Services (SOF GLSS) contract, which is a competitive follow-on contract to SOF CLSS. We anticipate an award decision on the follow-on contract in mid-2017. MFC’s operating results included the following (in millions):

2016 compared to 2015

MFC’s net sales in 2016 decreased $162 million, or 2%, compared to 2015. The decrease was attributable to lower net sales of approximately $205 million for air and missile defense programs due to decreased volume (primarily THAAD); and lower net sales of approximately $95 million due to lower volume on various programs. These decreases were partially offset by a $75 million increase for tactical missiles programs due to increased deliveries (primarily Hellfire); and approximately $70 million for fire control programs due to increased volume (SOF CLSS).

MFC’s operating profit in 2016 decreased $264 million, or 21%, compared to 2015. Operating profit decreased approximately $145 million for air and missile defense programs due to lower risk retirements (PAC-3 and THAAD) and a reserve for a contractual matter; approximately $45 million for tactical missiles programs due to lower risk retirements (Javelin); and approximately $45 million for fire control programs due to lower risk retirements (Apache) and program mix. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and reserves, were about $225 million lower in 2016 compared to 2015.

41

Table of Contents

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.

Backlog

Backlog decreased in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to lower orders on PAC-3, Hellfire, and JASSM. 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.

Trends

We expect MFC’s net sales to increase in the mid-single digit percentage range in 2017 as compared to 2016 driven primarily by our air and missile defense programs. Operating profit is expected to be flat or increase slightly. Accordingly, operating profit margin is expected to decline from 2016 levels as a result of contract mix and fewer risk retirements in 2017 compared to 2016.

Rotary and Mission Systems

As previously described, on November 6, 2015, we acquired Sikorsky and aligned the Sikorsky business under our RMS business segment. The 2015 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 RMS business segment operating results for the year ended December 31, 2015 do not reflect a full year of Sikorsky operations.

Our RMS 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, RMS supports the needs of government customers in cybersecurity and delivers communication and command and control capabilities through complex mission solutions for defense applications. RMS’ major programs include Black Hawk and Seahawk helicopters, Aegis Combat System (Aegis), LCS, Space Fence, Advanced Hawkeye Radar System, TPQ-53 Radar System, CH-53K development helicopter, and VH-92A helicopter program. RMS’ operating results included the following (in millions):

2016 compared to 2015

RMS’ net sales in 2016 increased $4.4 billion, or 48%, compared to 2015. The increase was primarily attributable to higher net sales of approximately $4.6 billion from Sikorsky, which was acquired on November 6, 2015. Net sales for 2015 include Sikorsky’s results subsequent to the acquisition date, net of certain revenue adjustments required to account for the acquisition of this business. This increase was partially offset by lower net sales of approximately $70 million for training

42

Table of Contents

and logistics programs due to the divestiture of our LMCFT business, which reported sales through the May 2, 2016 divestiture date; and approximately $65 million for ship and aviation systems programs due to decreased volume on various programs.

RMS’ operating profit in 2016 increased $62 million, or 7%, compared to 2015. Operating profit increased approximately $85 million for training and logistics programs due primarily to the divestiture of our LMCFT business which generated operating losses through its May 2, 2016 divestiture date; about $60 million for our integrated warfare systems and sensors programs due to investments made in connection with a next generation radar technology program awarded during 2015; and approximately $55 million for undersea systems programs due primarily to higher reserves for performance matters on an international program in 2015. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $70 million as a result of a higher operating loss from Sikorsky, inclusive of the unfavorable impacts of intangible asset amortization and other adjustments required to account for the acquisition of this business; about $30 million for ship and aviation systems programs due primarily to performance on various programs; and about $25 million for other matters. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments and reserves, were about $155 million higher in 2016 compared to 2015.

2015 compared to 2014

RMS’ 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).

RMS’ 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.

Backlog

Backlog decreased in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to sales being recognized on several multi-year programs (primarily in Sikorsky) related to prior year awards. Backlog increased in 2015 compared to 2014 primarily due to the addition of Sikorsky’s backlog, as well as higher orders on new program starts (such as Australian Defence Force Pilot Training System).

Trends

We expect RMS’ 2017 net sales to increase in the low-single digit percentage range compared to 2016. Operating profit is expected to increase in the low-double-digit percentage range due to a reduction in certain purchase accounting adjustments that were attributable to the Sikorsky acquisition, resulting in higher operating profit margins between years.

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 space and ground-based 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 The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS). Operating profit for our Space Systems business

43

Table of Contents

segment includes AWE and 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):

2016 compared to 2015

Space Systems’ net sales in 2016 increased $304 million, or 3%, compared to 2015. The increase was attributable to net sales of approximately $410 million from AWE following the consolidation of this business in the third quarter of 2016; and approximately $150 million for commercial space transportation programs due to increased launch-related activities; and approximately $70 million of higher net sales for various programs (primarily Fleet Ballistic Missiles) due to increased volume. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in net sales of approximately $340 million for government satellite programs due to decreased volume (primarily SBIRS and MUOS) and the wind-down or completion of mission solutions programs.

Space Systems’ operating profit in 2016 increased $118 million, or 10%, compared to 2015. The increase was primarily attributable to a non-cash, pre-tax gain of approximately $127 million related to the consolidation of AWE; and approximately $80 million of increased equity earnings from joint ventures (primarily ULA). These increases were partially offset by a decrease of approximately $105 million for government satellite programs due to lower risk retirements (primarily SBIRS, MUOS and mission solutions programs) and decreased volume. Adjustments not related to volume, including net profit booking rate adjustments, were approximately $185 million lower in 2016 compared to 2015.

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.

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.

Equity earnings

Total equity earnings recognized by Space Systems (primarily ULA) represented approximately $325 million, $245 million and $280 million, or 25%, 21% and 24% of this business segment’s operating profit during 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Backlog

Backlog increased in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to the addition of AWE’s 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.

Trends

We expect Space Systems’ 2017 net sales to decrease in the mid-single digit percentage range as compared to 2016, driven by program lifecycles on government satellite programs, partially offset by the recognition of AWE net sales for a full year in 2017 versus a partial year in 2016 following the consolidation of AWE in the third quarter of 2016. Operating profit

44

Table of Contents

is expected to decline in the low- to mid-double digit percentage range, primarily driven by sales volume, the one-time AWE non-cash gain in 2016, amortization of the AWE intangible assets in 2017, and lower equity earnings in 2017 compared to 2016. As a result operating profit margin is expected to decline from 2016 levels.

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 2016. First, we increased our fourth quarter dividend rate by 10% to $1.82 per share. Second, the Board of Directors approved a $2.0 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Inclusive of this increase, the total remaining authorization for future common share repurchases under our program was $3.5 billion as of December 31, 2016.

During 2016, we received a one-time, tax-free special cash payment of approximately $1.8 billion as a result of the divestiture of the IS&GS business in the third quarter of 2016. We used the proceeds to repay $500 million of long-term notes at their scheduled maturity and paid $484 million in dividends with a portion of this cash. The remainder was used for share repurchases.

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 below in “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” and “Note 10 – Debt” included in our Notes to 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. 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 2016, 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.

45

Table of Contents

The majority of our capital expenditures for 2016 and those planned for 2017 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, and we have projects underway to modernize certain of our 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.

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

Operating Activities

2016 compared to 2015

Net cash provided by operating activities increased $88 million in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to a reduction in cash paid for income taxes, partially offset by an increase in cash paid for interest expense and an increase in cash used for working capital. The $196 million increase in cash flows used for working capital (defined as receivables and inventories less accounts payable and customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred) was attributable to timing of cash receipts for receivables (primarily F-35 program), partially offset by 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. We made net income tax payments of $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We made interest payments of approximately $600 million and approximately $375 million during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

We may determine to fund customer programs ourselves pending government appropriations. If we incur costs in excess of funds obligated on a contract, we are at risk for reimbursement of the excess costs. In 2014 and 2015, we received customer authorization and initial funding to begin producing F-35 aircraft to be acquired under LRIP 9 and 10 contracts, respectively. As a result of recent funding by the U.S. Government, our potential cash exposure and termination liability were not material at December 31, 2016. However, it may become material if government appropriations are delayed as was the case in the second and third quarters of 2016.

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

46

Table of Contents

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).

Investing Activities

Net cash used for investing activities decreased $8.7 billion in 2016 compared to the prior year, primarily due to $9.0 billion of cash used for acquisition activities in 2015 that did not recur in 2016. Net cash used for investing activities increased $8.0 billion in 2015 compared to 2014, primarily due to cash used for acquisition activities. Acquisition activities include both the acquisition of businesses and investments in affiliates. We had no acquisitions in 2016. In 2015 we paid $9.0 billion for the Sikorsky acquisition, net of cash acquired. In 2014, we paid $898 million for acquisition activities, primarily related to the acquisitions of Zeta, Systems Made Simple, and Industrial Defender (see “Note 3 – Acquisitions and Divestitures” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).

Capital expenditures amounted to $1.1 billion in 2016, $939 million in 2015 and $845 million in 2014. 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 used for financing activities increased $7.7 billion in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt in 2015 which did not recur in 2016, the repayments of long-term debt in 2016, and higher dividend payments, partially offset by the proceeds from the one-time special cash payment of $1.8 billion from the divestiture of the IS&GS business and a reduction in cash used for repurchases of common stock.

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.

In May 2016, we repaid $452 million of long-term notes with a fixed interest rate of 7.65% according to their scheduled maturities.

In September 2016, we repaid $500 million of long-term notes with a fixed interest rate of 2.13% according to their scheduled maturities.

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 the “Capital Structure, Resources and Other” discussion below and “Note 10 – Debt” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for more information about our debt financing activities.

We paid dividends totaling $2.0 billion ($6.77 per share) in 2016, $1.9 billion ($6.15 per share) in 2015 and $1.8 billion ($5.49 per share) in 2014. 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 2016. We declared quarterly dividends of $1.65 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2016 and $1.82 per share during the fourth quarter of 2016; $1.50 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2015 and $1.65 per share during the fourth quarter of 2015; and $1.33 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2014 and $1.50 per share during the fourth quarter of 2014.

We paid $2.1 billion, $3.1 billion and $1.9 billion to repurchase 8.9 million, 15.2 million and 11.5 million shares of our common stock during 2016, 2015 and 2014.

47

Table of Contents

Cash received from the issuance of our common stock in connection with employee stock option exercises during 2016, 2015 and 2014 totaled $106 million, $174 million and $308 million. The exercises resulted in the issuance of 1.2 million, 2.2 million and 3.7 million shares of our common stock.

Capital Structure, Resources and Other

At December 31, 2016, we held cash and cash equivalents of $1.8 billion. As of December 31, 2016, 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 2016, we estimate that about $64 million of U.S. federal income tax would have been due after considering foreign tax credits.

Our outstanding debt, net of unamortized discounts and issuance costs, amounted to $14.3 billion at December 31, 2016 and mainly is in the form of publicly-issued notes that bear interest at fixed rates. As of December 31, 2016, 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.

On occasion, customers may seek financing for the purchase of our products. In connection with these transactions, we may enter into arrangements along with our customers with unrelated third – party financial institutions to facilitate the non-recourse sale of customer receivables. For accounting purposes, these transactions are treated as a sale of receivables and the sale proceeds from the banks are reflected in our operating cash flows on the consolidated statements of cash flows. During 2016, there was no significant activity related to sales of customer receivables.

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. The 5-year Facility, was amended in October 2016 to extend its expiration date by one year from October 9, 2020 to October 9, 2021. The 5-year Facility 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 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, 2016.

Borrowings under the 5-year Facility are unsecured and bear interest at rates based, at our option, on a Eurodollar Rate or a Base Rate, as defined in the 5-year Facility’s agreement. 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

See “Note 10 – Debt” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information about our long-term debt.

We 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.

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. During 2016, we borrowed and fully repaid amounts under our commercial paper programs. There were no commercial paper borrowings outstanding as of December 31, 2016. However, we expect to continue to issue commercial paper backed by our credit facility to manage the timing of our cash flows.

48

Table of Contents

Total Equity

Our total equity was $1.6 billion at December 31, 2016, a decrease of $1.5 billion from December 31, 2015. The decrease was primarily due to the 9.4 million common shares tendered and retired in connection with the divestiture of our IS&GS business for $2.5 billion; the repurchase of 8.9 million common shares for $2.1 billion; and dividends declared of $2.0 billion during the year. These decreases were partially offset by net earnings of $5.3 billion and employee stock activity of $399 million (including the impacts of stock option exercises, ESOP activity and stock-based compensation).

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 $1.7 billion recorded as a reduction of retained earnings in 2016.

Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

At December 31, 2016, 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, 2016. 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 $33 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.

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

49

Table of Contents

(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. Satisfaction of our offset obligations are included in the estimates of our total costs to complete the contract and may impact our sales, profitability and cash flows. Our ability to recover investments on our consolidated balance sheet that we make to satisfy offset obligations 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, 2016, the notional value of remaining obligations under our outstanding offset agreements totaled approximately $15 billion, which primarily relate to our Aeronautics, MFC and RMS business segments, most of which extend through 2044. To the extent we have entered into purchase obligations at December 31, 2016 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 $1.7 billion at December 31, 2016, 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, 2016, 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, 2016, 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, 2016, we had the following outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees (in millions):

At December 31, 2016, third-party guarantees totaled $709 million, of which approximately 56% 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 venture partner. We believe our current and former venture partners will be able to perform their obligations, as they have done through December 31, 2016, 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.

50

Table of Contents

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 consolidated 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.

Contract Types

Our contracts generally record sales for both products and services under cost-reimbursable, fixed-price and time-and-materials contracts.

Cost-reimbursable contracts

Cost-reimbursable contracts, which accounted for about 38%, 42%, and 41% of our total net sales in 2016, 2015, and 2014, 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

Under fixed-price contracts, which accounted for about 61%, 57%, and 58% of our total net sales in 2016, 2015, and 2014, 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.

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.

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

51

Table of Contents

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.

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

52

Table of Contents

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 – Postretirement Plans” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). 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 consolidated 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.

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, the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets, participant longevity, employee turnover 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

53

Table of Contents

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 continue to use a single weighted average discount rate approach when calculating our benefit obligations related to our defined benefit pension plans resulting in 4.125% at December 31, 2016, compared to 4.375% at December 31, 2015 and 4.00% at December 31, 2014. We utilized a weighted average discount rate of 4.00% when calculating our benefit obligations related to our retiree medical plans at December 31, 2016, compared to 4.25% at December 31, 2015 and 3.75% at December 31, 2014. We evaluate several data points in order to arrive at an appropriate weighted average 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 7.50% at December 31, 2016, as compared to 8.00% at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. We reduced our expected long-term rate of return assumption due to downward pressure on the equity and fixed income asset classes in our trust. An increasingly aging population and debt burden place downward pressure on already low interest rates and economic growth; suggesting the future return for our fixed-income may be lower than historical norms. Surges in equities since 2009 have led to a high valuation of the equity markets, suggesting the forward return may also be lower than historical norms. 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. Any variance in a given year should not, by itself, suggest that the assumption should be changed. Patterns of variances are reviewed over time, and then combined with expectations for the future. As a result, changes in this assumption are less frequent than changes in the discount rate.

On October 20, 2016, the Society of Actuaries published revised longevity assumptions that refined its prior studies of longevity. We used the revised assumptions indicating a shortened longevity in our December 31, 2016 remeasurement of benefit obligation. The publication was a refinement to the assumptions the Society of Actuaries published in October 2014 and October 2015 that we previously adopted beginning year 2014.

Our stockholders’ equity has been reduced cumulatively by $12.0 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, investment losses and updated longevity. A market-related value of our plan assets, determined using actual asset gains or losses over the prior three year period, is used to calculate the amount of deferred asset gains or losses to be amortized. These cumulative actuarial losses will be amortized to expense using the corridor method, where gains and losses are recognized to the extent they exceed 10% of the greater of plan assets or benefit obligations, over the average future service period of employees expected to receive benefits under the plans of approximately nine years as of December 31, 2016. This amortization period is expected to extend (approximately double) in 2020 when our non-union pension plan is completely frozen to use the average remaining life expectancy of the participants instead of average future service. During 2016, $699 million of these amounts was recognized as a component of postretirement benefit plans expense and about $800 million is expected to be recognized as expense in 2017.

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 4.125% discount rate assumption at December 31, 2016, 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 2016 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 4.125% discount rate at December 31, 2016 that was used to compute the expected 2017 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 2017 would be lower or higher by approximately $120 million. If the 7.50% expected long-term rate of return on plan assets assumption at December 31, 2016 that was used to compute the expected 2017 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 2017 would be lower or higher by approximately $80 million.

54

Table of Contents

Each year, differences between the actual plan asset return and the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets impacts the measurement of the following year’s FAS expense. Every 100 basis points difference in return during 2016 between our actual return of 5.0% and our expected long-term rate of return of 8.0% impacted 2017 FAS pension expense by approximately $20 million.

Funding Considerations

There were no contributions to our heritage qualified defined benefit pension plans in 2016 and 2015. We made contributions related to our heritage qualified defined benefit pension plans of $2.0 billion in 2014 inclusive of amounts in excess of our required contributions. 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. The ERISA funded status is calculated on a different basis than under GAAP. As a result of 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, there was an increase in the interest rate assumption, which in turn lowered the minimum funding requirements. 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. The ERISA funded status of our qualified defined benefit pension plans was about 87% and 90% as of December 31, 2016 and 2015. The GAAP funded status of our qualified defined benefit pension plans was about 70% and 73% at December 31, 2016 and 2015.

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 $2.0 billion in 2016, $1.6 billion in 2015, and $1.5 billion in 2014 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, 2016, our prepayment credits were approximately $7.7 billion as compared to $9.0 billion at December 31, 2015. The recovery of CAS pension costs under U.S. Government contracts in excess of our contributions reduces the prepayment credit balance. The prepayment credit balance will also 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 2017 because none are required using current assumptions, including investment returns on plan assets. However, we do plan to make contributions of approximately $45 million in 2017 to our new Sikorsky bargained qualified defined benefit pension plan. Pension contributions to our heritage plans are expected to resume with contributions projected of about $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion in 2018 using current assumptions including investment returns on plan assets. We anticipate recovering almost $2.3 billion of CAS pension cost in 2017 with a higher CAS recovery projected in 2018. 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 $7.7 billion of prepayment credits existing at December 31, 2016.

We expect our 2017 FAS pension expense to be $1.4 billion, as compared to our 2016 FAS pension expense of $1.0 billion, primarily due to the lower discount rate of 4.125% for 2017 versus 4.375% for 2016 and lower expected long-

55

Table of Contents

term rate of return on plan assets of 7.50% at December 31, 2016 versus 8.00% at December 31, 2015. We expect a FAS/CAS pension adjustment in 2017 of about $880 million, as compared to $902 million in 2016. The increase in 2017 FAS pension expense is mostly offset by higher 2017 CAS pension costs, as compared to 2016, 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 each of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the total amount of liabilities recorded on our consolidated balance sheet for environmental matters was $1.0 billion. We have recorded receivables totaling $870 million and $858 million at December 31, 2016 and 2015 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.

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 environmental remediation activities at 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” included in our Notes to 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).

The current standard in California for the maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water is 10 parts per billion (ppb). This standard is being challenged by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) as being lower than is required to protect public health. If the standard remains at 10 ppb, it will not have a material impact on our existing remediation costs in California. The U.S. EPA is considering whether to regulate hexavalent chromium.

In addition, California is reevaluating its existing drinking water standard of 6 ppb for perchlorate, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is taking steps to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level for perchlorate or for hexavalent chromium, 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, our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs, and recent efforts by some U.S. Government representatives to limit such reimbursement.

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

56

Table of Contents

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 cannot reasonably 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.

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 balance was $10.8 billion and $10.7 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015. 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. For selected reporting units where we use the qualitative approach, 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. We perform quantitative tests for most reporting units at least once every three years. However, for certain reporting units we may perform a quantitative impairment test every year.

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.

57

Table of Contents

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. 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.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test for each of our reporting units. The results of our 2016 annual impairment tests of goodwill indicated that no impairment existed. The carrying value of our Sikorsky reporting unit includes goodwill of $2.7 billion as of December 31, 2016. Currently, we estimate that the fair value of our Sikorsky reporting unit exceeds its carrying value by a margin of approximately 10%. We acquired Sikorsky in November 2015 and recorded the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at fair value. Due to the recent acquisition and valuation, the carrying value and fair value of our Sikorsky reporting unit are currently closely aligned. Therefore, any business deterioration, contract cancelations or terminations, or market pressures could cause our sales, earnings and cash flows to decline below current projections. Similarly, market factors utilized in the impairment analysis, including long-term growth rates, discount rates and relevant comparable public company earnings multiples and transaction multiples, could negatively impact the fair value of our reporting units. Based on our current assessment of these circumstances, we have determined that our Sikorsky reporting unit is at risk of a future goodwill impairment should there be deterioration of projected cash flows, negative changes in market factors or a significant increase in the carrying value of the 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.

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 and are amortized on a straight-line basis over a period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value, which ranges from nine to 20 years. 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 20 years, based on the nature of the asset and the underlying pattern of economic benefit as reflected by future net cash inflows.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, we performed the annual impairment test for the Sikorsky indefinite-lived trademark intangible asset and the results indicated that no impairment existed. The carrying value of our Sikorsky reporting unit includes a trademark intangible asset of $887 million as of December 31, 2016. Using the relief from royalty method, we estimated that the fair value of this intangible asset approximated its carrying value. As discussed above in the Goodwill section, the carrying value and fair value of our Sikorsky reporting unit are currently closely aligned due to the recent acquisition of Sikorsky. Therefore, any business deterioration, contract cancelations or terminations, or market pressures could cause our sales to decline below current projections. Based on our current assessment of these circumstances, we have determined that our Sikorsky trademark intangible asset is at risk of a future impairment.

58

Table of Contents

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See “Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for information under the caption “Recent Accounting Pronouncements” related to new accounting standards.

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 $16.2 billion at December 31, 2016 and the outstanding principal amount was $15.3 billion, excluding unamortized discounts and issuance 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, 2016.

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, the Euro, the Canadian dollar and the Australian 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, 2016 and 2015 was $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion. The aggregate notional amount of our outstanding foreign currency hedges at December 31, 2016 and 2015 was $4.0 billion and $4.1 billion. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the net fair value of our derivative instruments was not material (see “Note 16 – Fair Value Measurements”) included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements). 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, 2016 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.

59

Table of Contents

We maintain a separate trust that includes investments to fund certain of our non-qualified deferred compensation plans. As of December 31, 2016, investments in the trust totaled $1.2 billion and are reflected at fair value on our consolidated 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 consolidated statements of earnings in other unallocated, net and were not material for the year ended December 31, 2016.

60

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, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. 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, 2016 and 2015, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, 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, 2016, 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 9, 2017 expressed an adverse opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia

February 9, 2017

61

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.

62

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.

63

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in millions, except par value)

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

64

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(in millions)

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

65

Table of Contents

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statements of Equity

(in millions, except per share data)