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.

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):

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.

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.