10-K 1 gd-2012123110k.htm 10-K GD-2012.12.31 10K

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)
[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _______ to _______

Commission File Number 1-3671

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware
 
13-1673581
State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization
 
I.R.S. employer identification no.
 
 
 
2941 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 100,
Falls Church, Virginia
 
22042-4513
Address of principal executive offices
 
Zip code
    
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(703) 876-3000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
 
Name of exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $1 per share
 
New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ü No ___
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ___ No ü
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ü No ___
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ü No ___
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment of this Form 10-K ü
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large Accelerated Filer ü Accelerated Filer __ Non-Accelerated Filer __ Smaller Reporting Company ___
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes No ü
The aggregate market value of the voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $22,029,273,687 as of July 1, 2012 (based on the closing price of the shares on the New York Stock Exchange).
353,442,904 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $1 par value per share, were outstanding on January 27, 2013.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
Part III incorporates by reference information from certain portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year.




INDEX

PART I
 
PAGE
Item 1.
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
PART II
 
 
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.
Item 9A.
Item 9B.
PART III
 
 
Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
PART IV
 
 
Item 15.
 

2



3


PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

BUSINESS OVERVIEW
General Dynamics is an aerospace and defense company that offers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation; combat vehicles, weapons systems and munitions; shipbuilding; and communications and information technology. Our experienced management team delivers shareholder returns through disciplined execution on backlog, efficient cash-flow conversion and prudent capital deployment. We manage overhead costs, undertake continuous-improvement initiatives and collaborate across our businesses to maximize earnings and cash. Our disciplined capital deployment approach includes internal investment, acquisitions and divestitures, dividends and the repurchase of company shares on the open market.
Incorporated in Delaware in 1952, General Dynamics grew organically and through acquisitions until the early 1990s when we sold nearly all of our divisions except Electric Boat and Land Systems. Starting in the mid-1990s, we again began expanding by acquiring combat vehicle-related businesses, additional shipyards, information technology product and service companies and Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. Since 1995, we have acquired and integrated more than 65 businesses to further strengthen and complement our business portfolio. We and our subsidiaries have 92,200 employees globally.
We operate through four business groups: Aerospace, Combat Systems, Marine Systems and Information Systems and Technology. For selected financial information regarding each of our business groups, see Note Q to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
AEROSPACE
Our Aerospace group designs, manufactures and outfits a comprehensive family of Gulfstream business-jet aircraft, provides aircraft services (including maintenance and repair work, fixed-based operations (FBO) and aircraft management services) and performs aircraft completions for aircraft produced by other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). With more than 50 years of experience at the forefront of the business-jet market, the Aerospace group is known for:

superior aircraft design, quality, performance, safety and reliability;
technologically advanced cockpit and cabin systems; and
industry-leading product service and support.
The Gulfstream product line includes aircraft across a spectrum of price and performance options in the large- and mid-cabin business-jet market. The varying ranges, speeds and cabin dimensions are well-suited to the transportation needs of an increasingly diverse and global customer base. The large-cabin models are manufactured at Gulfstream’s headquarters in Savannah, Georgia, while the mid-cabin models are constructed by an international partner. All models are outfitted in the group’s U.S. facilities.
The two newest aircraft to join the Gulfstream family, the ultra-large-cabin, ultra-high-speed G650 and the super-mid-size G280, each earned Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certification and entered into service in 2012. The G650 has the longest range, fastest speed, largest cabin and most advanced cockpit in the Gulfstream fleet and defines a completely new segment at the top of the business-jet market. The G280, which has replaced the G200, offers a larger cabin and the longest range at the fastest speed in its class. During flight testing, both of these aircraft exceeded original performance expectations and set city-pair speed records.

4


Demand for Gulfstream aircraft remains strong across geographic regions and customer types. While North American corporate customer demand has increased recently, international orders comprise approximately 60 percent of the group’s backlog, representing demand from several emerging markets including the Asia-Pacific region. Private companies and individuals collectively represent approximately 60 percent of the group’s backlog. Gulfstream also remains a leading provider of aircraft for governments and militaries around the world, with aircraft operated by nearly 40 nations. These government aircraft are used for head-of-state/executive transportation and a variety of special-mission applications, including aerial reconnaissance, maritime surveillance and weather research.
We are committed to continuous investment in research and development (R&D) activities that enable us to introduce new products and first-to-market enhancements that broaden customer choice, improve aircraft performance and set new standards for customer safety, comfort and in-flight productivity. Gulfstream’s aircraft are designed to minimize lifecycle costs while maximizing the commonality of parts among the various models. Current product-enhancement and development efforts include initiatives in advanced avionics, composites, biofuels, flight-control systems, acoustics, cabin technologies and enhanced vision systems. Recent innovations include a state-of-the-art cabin management system designed for the G650, and now available on several other Gulfstream aircraft. This system gives passengers control of the aircraft cabin systems through a handheld device synched to a particular seat on the aircraft. Each passenger can easily control their own environment, including lighting, temperature and entertainment equipment. We also offer the PlaneBook application, which provides pilots easy and immediate digital access to critical flight information and aircraft-specific documents.
A multi-year facilities project at our Savannah campus is scheduled to continue through 2017. This expansion includes constructing new facilities, renovating existing infrastructure and expanding the group’s R&D center. This investment is intended to position the group to meet future demand for business-jet aircraft. This effort follows a recently completed multi-year project in Savannah that established a purpose-built G650 manufacturing facility, increased aircraft-service capacity, improved the group’s customer sales and design center and created a state-of-the-art paint facility.
In addition to the increased service capacity in Savannah, the service network for Gulfstream aircraft is evolving to address the demands of the growing international customer base. In 2012, for example, we added Gulfstream service centers in emerging markets such as Brazil and China and expanded our facility in Luton, United Kingdom. We also have a team of Gulfstream aircraft technicians to deploy for urgent customer-service requirements in the Americas and Europe. This commitment to superior product support continues to receive industry recognition, including the number-one ranking for the tenth consecutive year in the annual Aviation International News Product Support Survey, as well as the top ranking in the annual Professional Pilot Survey.
Jet Aviation augments our Aerospace portfolio by providing best-in-class maintenance, repair, aircraft management and FBO services to a broad global customer base. The Aerospace group also performs aircraft completions for business jets and narrow- and wide-body commercial aircraft produced by other OEMs at locations in Europe and the United States.
A market leader in the business-aviation industry, the Aerospace group remains focused on developing innovative first-to-market technologies and products; providing exemplary and timely service support to customers globally; and driving efficiencies and reducing costs in the aircraft production, outfitting and service processes.
Revenues for the Aerospace group were 16 percent of our consolidated revenues in 2010, 19 percent in 2011 and 22 percent in 2012. Revenues by major products and services were as follows:
 

5


Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
3,869

 
$
4,400

 
$
5,317

Aircraft services
1,323

 
1,521

 
1,491

Pre-owned aircraft
107

 
77

 
104

Total Aerospace
$
5,299

 
$
5,998

 
$
6,912

COMBAT SYSTEMS
Our Combat Systems group is a global leader in the design, development, production, support and enhancement of tracked and wheeled military vehicles, weapons systems and munitions for the United States and its allies. The group’s product lines include:
 
wheeled combat and tactical vehicles,
main battle tanks and tracked combat vehicles,
munitions and propellant,
rockets and gun systems,
axle and drivetrain components and aftermarket parts, and
support and sustainment services.
We have a mature and diverse portfolio of franchise products that deliver core capabilities to domestic and international customers across the military vehicle, weapons systems and munitions markets. These long-term production programs position us to pursue continuous process improvements and other cost reduction initiatives that drive the group’s financial performance. We apply our design and engineering expertise to develop product enhancements that advance the utility, safety and effectiveness of our products.
Our portfolio of vehicle platforms in our U.S. military vehicles business consists of wheeled combat vehicles and main battle tanks for the U.S. military, including the Stryker wheeled combat vehicle and the Abrams main battle tank. These vehicles are fundamental to the military’s warfighting capabilities and offer continuing opportunities for upgrades and modernization to meet evolving requirements.
The Stryker has proven itself as a versatile combat vehicle, supporting numerous missions over the past 10 years. To meet evolving customer requirements, the group developed a double-V-hulled Stryker to further enhance soldier protection from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Over the last two years, nearly 750 double-V-hulled vehicles have been delivered to the U.S. Army. In 2012, the group secured contracts to perform hull exchanges to convert previously delivered Stryker vehicles to the double-V-hull configuration.
We continue to support the Army’s evolving needs for main battle tanks with technology upgrades to the Abrams, such as the System Enhancement Package (SEP). The SEP-configured tank is a digital platform with an enhanced command-and-control system, second-generation thermal sights and improved armor. In September 2012, we received a multi-year contract from the Army to conduct development efforts for additional upgrade opportunities designed to increase the efficiency and capability of the Abrams tank.
Beyond these long-term platform programs, we have opportunities associated with the refurbishment of battle-damaged vehicles and the replacement of equipment that has reached the end of its service life. As the sole provider of Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles, Combat Systems is the primary contractor for the maintenance, repair and reset of these vehicles.
The group’s portfolio of tactical vehicles is at the forefront of blast- and ballistic- protected technologies, designed to protect vehicle occupants from landmines, hostile fire and IEDs. We have delivered more than 4,500 RG-31 and Cougar vehicles to the U.S. military under the Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP)

6


vehicle program. This large installed base has led to subsequent modernization programs, as well as support and sustainment services.
By leveraging the expertise gained from our incumbency on current production programs, we are well-positioned to participate in future U.S. combat vehicle development programs. In addition to the Abrams and Stryker modernization efforts, we have a contract for the design and development phase of the Army’s next-generation infantry fighting vehicle, the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV). The group is also positioning itself for the upcoming competitions for new contracts for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), the cornerstone of the U.S. Marine Corps’ future amphibious-assault requirements, and the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program, a replacement for the M113 family of vehicles.
As a result of the demonstrated success of our U.S. military vehicles, we have cultivated continued international demand. The group’s U.S. exports include Abrams tanks and Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) for U.S. allies around the world. The international operations of our U.S. military vehicles business also have generated significant indigenous opportunities. We are modernizing approximately 600 LAV III combat vehicles for the Canadian government, as well as providing long-term support to all Canadian LAV vehicles. For the U.K. Ministry of Defence, we are producing the Foxhound armored vehicle and will co-produce the Specialist Vehicle with the U.K. operations of our Information Systems and Technology group.
Combat Systems has also benefited from customer relationships developed through its in-country operations including manufacturing sites in Austria, France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland where we are a key part of the defense industrial base. The group’s European operations offer a broad range of products, including military vehicles, amphibious bridge systems, artillery systems, ammunition and propellants. Key platforms include the Leopard tank, the Pizarro and Ulan tracked infantry vehicles, the Eagle wheeled vehicle, and the Piranha and Pandur wheeled armored vehicles.
Complementing these combat-vehicle offerings are Combat Systems’ weapons systems and munitions programs. For ground forces, the group manufactures vehicle armor, M2 heavy machine guns and MK19 and MK47 grenade launchers. For airborne platforms, the group produces weapons for many foreign customers and all U.S. fighter aircraft, including high-speed Gatling guns for fixed-wing aircraft and the Hydra-70 family of rockets. We are also a global manufacturer and supplier of composite aircraft and ground equipment components and highly engineered axles, suspensions, brakes and aftermarket parts for a variety of military and commercial customers.
Our munitions portfolio covers the full breadth of naval, air and ground forces applications across all calibers and weapon platforms for the U.S. government and its allies. The group holds leading munitions supply positions for products such as large caliber tank ammunition, medium caliber ammunition, mortar and artillery projectiles, tactical missile aerostructures and high-performance warheads, military propellants and conventional bombs and bomb cases.
The Combat Systems group continues to emphasize operational execution and business optimization initiatives to drive cost reductions as the group delivers on its backlog. As an example, we are aligning our European business for anticipated lower demand, ensuring that we are competitively positioned for the future. In an environment of dynamic threats and evolving customer needs, the group remains focused on innovation, affordability and speed-to-market to deliver on our current programs and to secure new opportunities.
Revenues for the Combat Systems group were 27 percent of our consolidated revenues in 2010 and 2011 and 25 percent in 2012. Revenues by major products and services were as follows:
 

7


Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Wheeled combat vehicles
$
3,961

 
$
4,220

 
$
3,930

Munitions and propellant
1,359

 
1,314

 
1,252

Tanks and tracked vehicles
1,567

 
1,159

 
792

Rockets and gun systems
728

 
740

 
698

Engineering and development
408

 
397

 
516

Drivetrain components and other
855

 
997

 
804

Total Combat Systems
$
8,878

 
$
8,827

 
$
7,992

MARINE SYSTEMS
Our Marine Systems group designs, builds and supports submarines and surface ships. We are one of two primary shipbuilders for the U.S. Navy. The group’s diverse portfolio of platforms and capabilities includes:

nuclear-powered submarines (Virginia class and Ohio-class replacement),
surface combatants (DDG-51 and DDG-1000),
auxiliary and combat-logistics ships (MLP and T-AKE),
commercial ships (Jones Act ships),
design and engineering support, and
overhaul, repair and lifecycle support services.
Our work for the Navy includes the construction of new ships and the design and development of next-generation platforms to help meet evolving missions and maintain desired fleet size. The group also provides maintenance, repair and modernization services to help maximize the life and effectiveness of in-service ships and maintain their relevance to the Navy’s current requirements. This business consists primarily of major ship-construction programs awarded under large, multi-ship contracts that span several years. The group’s current Navy construction programs are the Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarine, the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) and Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) guided-missile destroyers, and the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) auxiliary support ship.
The Virginia-class submarine includes capabilities for open-ocean and littoral missions. These stealthy boats are well-suited for a variety of global assignments, including intelligence gathering, special-operations missions and sea-based missile launch. The Virginia-class program includes 30 submarines, which the customer is procuring in multi-ship blocks. The group has delivered nine of 18 boats under contract in conjunction with an industry partner that shares in the construction of these vessels. The remaining nine boats under contract extend deliveries through 2018. We have submitted a proposal for the next block of submarines under the program expected to be awarded near the end of 2013.
We are the lead designer and producer of DDG-51s, the only active destroyer in the Navy’s global surface fleet, managing the design, modernization and lifecycle support of these ships. DDG-51s are multi-mission combatants that offer defense against a wide range of threats, including ballistic missiles. In 2012, we delivered the final DDG-51 ship under the prior multi-ship contract. In connection with the Navy’s restart of the DDG-51 program, we have been awarded construction contracts for two destroyers. Delivery of these ships is scheduled for 2016 and 2017. We have submitted a competitive bid for a multi-ship construction contract that is expected to be awarded in the first half of 2013.
The group is also currently building the three ships planned under the DDG-1000 destroyer program, the Navy’s next-generation, guided-missile naval destroyer. These ships are equipped with numerous advanced technology and survivability systems, including a low radar profile, an integrated power system and advanced gun systems that provide a three-fold increase in range over current naval surface weapons.

8


Construction and delivery of the destroyer requires integration of components manufactured by others and supplied as government-furnished material. Deliveries of the ships are scheduled for 2015, 2016 and 2018.
The group’s MLP auxiliary support ship serves as a floating transfer station, improving the Navy’s ability to deliver equipment and cargo to areas without adequate port access. In 2012, the group was awarded a construction contract for the third ship in the program. Construction of the first two ships is underway, with delivery of one ship per year beginning in 2013. The Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan includes procurement of a fourth ship in 2014.
In 2012, the group delivered the final ship under the 14-ship T-AKE program, marking the completion of a shipbuilding program that spanned more than a decade. T-AKE ships support multiple missions for the Navy and incorporate marine technologies and commercial ship-design features to minimize operating and maintenance costs over the ships’ service life. Throughout the course of the program, the group reduced the hours required to build a single ship by nearly 80 percent.
We are also developing new technologies and naval platforms. These design and engineering efforts include initial concept studies for the development of the next-generation ballistic-missile submarine, which is expected to replace the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines. We received an award in the fourth quarter of 2012 for the design of the submarine. In conjunction with these efforts, the group is participating in the design of the Common Missile Compartment under joint development for the U.S. Navy and the U.K. Royal Navy.
In addition to these design and construction programs, Marine Systems provides comprehensive ship and submarine overhaul, repair and lifecycle support services to extend the service life and maximize the value of these ships to the customer. We operate the only full-service maintenance and repair shipyard on the West Coast. With the recent acquisition of two repair operations, we have extended the reach of our surface-ship repair capabilities in several major Navy ports on the East Coast. We also provide extensive submarine repair services in a variety of U.S. locations. Recently, we were awarded a contract for advance planning and preliminary execution of restoration efforts on USS Miami, which was badly damaged in a fire. We also provide allied navies with program management, planning, engineering and design support for submarine and surface-ship construction programs. In addition, we are a leading operator of ships for the U.S. Military Sealift Command and commercial customers.
Marine Systems has the proven capability to design and produce ships for commercial customers to meet the Jones Act requirement that ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports be built in U.S. shipyards. In the fourth quarter of 2012, we were awarded a contract for the construction of two liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered containerships. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2014 with deliveries in 2015 and 2016. When complete, the containerships are expected to be the largest ships of any type in the world primarily powered by LNG. We anticipate that the age of the Jones Act fleet and environmental regulations that require double-hull tankers and impose emission control limits will provide additional commercial shipbuilding opportunities.
To further the group’s goals of efficiency, technological innovation, affordability for the customer and continuous improvement, we make strategic investments in our business, often in cooperation with the Navy and local governments. In addition, Marine Systems leverages its design and engineering expertise across its shipyards to improve program execution and generate cost savings. This knowledge-sharing enables the group to use resources more efficiently and drive process improvements. We are well-positioned to continue to fulfill the ship-construction and support requirements of our Navy and commercial customers.
Revenues for the Marine Systems group were 21 percent of our consolidated revenues in 2010, 20 percent in 2011 and 21 percent in 2012. Revenues by major products and services were as follows:

9


 
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Nuclear-powered submarines
$
3,587

 
$
3,696

 
$
3,601

Surface combatants
1,360

 
1,191

 
1,152

Auxiliary and commercial ships
961

 
930

 
746

Repair and other services
769

 
814

 
1,093

Total Marine Systems
$
6,677

 
$
6,631

 
$
6,592

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY
Our Information Systems and Technology group provides critical technologies, products and services that support a wide range of government and commercial communication and information sharing and security needs. The group consists of a three-part portfolio centered on secure mobile communication systems, information technology solutions and mission support services, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
Secure mobile communication systems – We design, manufacture and deliver secure communication systems, command-and-control systems and operational hardware to customers in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the intelligence community and federal civilian and public safety agencies, and to international customers. Our leadership in this market results from decades of domain expertise with legacy systems, incumbency on today’s programs and continuous innovation that encompasses key technologies at the center of our customers’ missions. The group’s solutions include:

fixed and mobile radio and satellite communications systems and antenna technologies;
information assurance and encryption technologies, products, systems and services that ensure the security and integrity of fixed and mobile digital communications;
battlespace command-and-control systems; and
broadband networking.
This market is characterized by programs that enhance the customer’s ability to communicate, collaborate and access vital information through high-bandwidth, on-the-move Internet-like battlefield networks. Key programs include the U.S. Army’s Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) and the Handheld Manpack Small Form Fit (HMS) family of radios, which includes the AN/PRC-154 Rifleman and AN/PRC-155 Manpack radios and several other small networking radios.
WIN-T is the Army’s primary mobile battlefield communications network which provides soldiers secure, high-speed, high-capacity voice, data and video communications. As the prime contractor, we are responsible for the design, engineering, integration, production, program management and support of the network. The first increment of WIN-T is now fully deployed. The second increment, which adds on-the-move command and control and other capabilities, completed operational tests in May and began fielding in October of 2012. The third increment, which is in the development and testing phase, will provide enhanced network reliability, increased capacity and smaller, more-tightly integrated communications and networking gear.
We are the prime contractor for the HMS program, which provides networking radios that give soldiers secure, mobile voice, video and data communications capabilities, similar to those available through commercial cellular networks. The Rifleman radio has been deployed in Afghanistan with the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and 10th Mountain Division. The Manpack radio has demonstrated its capabilities through extensive government tests and the Army has announced plans to field it to five brigade combat teams in 2013. The Army has purchased more than 26,000 HMS radios from us and plans to procure competitively more than 240,000 over the life of the program.

10


Information Systems and Technology delivers similar communications and information-sharing benefits to many federal civilian customers. Since 2001, we have delivered more than 13,500 radios to the FAA, allowing air traffic controllers to communicate with commercial and military aircraft throughout the nation’s airspace, and we were recently awarded a contract to provide the FAA updated radios using the latest in communications technology.
We also provide many of these tactical communications capabilities to non-U.S. customers, including the Canadian Department of National Defence, the U.K. Ministry of Defence and public agencies and private companies in Europe and the Middle East. For example, we designed, procured, integrated and installed the telecommunications, security and control systems for the newly operating Khalifa Port in the United Arab Emirates, helping to make it among the most technologically advanced ports in the world.
Information technology solutions and mission support services – We provide mission-critical information technology (IT) and highly specialized mission-support services to the U.S. defense and intelligence communities; the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services and other federal civilian agencies; and commercial and international customers. We support the IT lifecycle from design and integration to operation and maintenance. We specialize in:
mission-operations simulation and training systems and services,
large-scale data center optimization and modernization,
network operations and maintenance,
health information technology solutions and services, and
secure wireless and wire-line networks and enterprise infrastructure.
In this market, Information Systems and Technology has a long-standing reputation for excellence in providing technical-support personnel and domain specialists, many of whom possess high-level clearances, to help customers execute their missions effectively. Frequently, our employees are the on-call staff that provides technical support for commercial desktop technology and mission-specific hardware. For example, we operate approximately 20 security operations centers and 15 critical incident response teams. Our employees also develop, install and operate mission systems on a daily basis. We are also at the forefront of cloud technologies and services.
Information Systems and Technology supplies network-modernization and IT infrastructure services to U.S. government customers, commercial wireless network providers and federal, state and local public safety agencies. We work closely with our customers to ensure these network infrastructures are secure, efficient, scalable and cost-effective. We are currently providing full enterprise support in the relocation of the Department of Homeland Security’s headquarters to the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, D.C., including establishing a state-of-the-art IT infrastructure.
The group is also a leading provider of IT solutions in the fast-growing market for government and commercial healthcare technology modernization. Our offerings include data management, analytics, fraud prevention and detection software, decision support, process automation solutions and program management solutions for deployed IT military health systems. For the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, we are supporting the government’s implementation of healthcare reform and medical benefits programs by delivering an automated Medicare claim adjudication system that efficiently manages the large volume of medical and healthcare claims. We also provide critical citizen services, including support for Medicare claims, contact center services, and student loan processing and administration for the Department of Education.

11


Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems – We provide mission systems development, integration and operations support to customers in the U.S. defense, intelligence and homeland security communities, and to U.S. allies. These offerings include:

cyber security services and products;
open-architecture mission systems;
signals and information collection, processing and distribution systems;
imagery solutions, sensors and cameras; and
special-purpose computing.
Information Systems and Technology’s experience in securing and protecting government organizations from network attacks has resulted in a market-leading position in cyber security. The group offers a range of cyber security services and products that help government and commercial customers protect their networks and prevent data breaches by providing real-time network visibility. For example, we are a principal support contractor for the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, which provides defense against and response to cyber attacks for U.S. executive branch agencies. We also leverage our expertise to provide investigative, forensic and network remediation services to commercial victims of cyber attacks, including retail and financial services firms.
Information Systems and Technology has a 50-year legacy of providing advanced fire control systems for Navy submarine programs and is developing and integrating commercial off-the-shelf software and hardware upgrades to improve the tactical control capabilities for several submarine classes. This initiative leads the implementation of the Navy’s open-architecture approach on submarines with a design that emphasizes shared standards, providing greater interoperability, scalability and supplier independence. Capitalizing on this expertise and open-architecture approach, we developed the combat and seaframe control systems and are the lead systems integrator for the Navy’s Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). We are also designing, integrating and testing the electronic systems for the Navy’s 10-ship Joint High Speed Vessel program.
The group’s three principal markets continue to be driven by the expanding needs of our diverse customer base, including improved mobile communications and real-time intelligence, IT network and business system consolidation and modernization, cyber security services and emergency response systems and services.
Revenues for the Information Systems and Technology group were 36 percent of our consolidated revenues in 2010, 34 percent in 2011 and 32 percent in 2012. Revenues by major products and services were as follows:

Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Mobile communication systems
$
5,134

 
$
4,511

 
$
3,425

IT solutions and mission support services
4,262

 
4,601

 
4,545

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems
2,216

 
2,109

 
2,047

Total Information Systems and Technology
$
11,612

 
$
11,221

 
$
10,017

 

CUSTOMERS
In 2012, 66 percent of our revenues were from the U.S. government, 13 percent were from U.S. commercial customers, 8 percent were from international defense customers, and the remaining 13 percent were from international commercial customers.

12


U.S. GOVERNMENT
Our primary customers are the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and intelligence community. We also contract with other U.S. government customers, including the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and several first-responder agencies. Our revenues from the U.S. government were as follows:

Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
DoD
$
20,446

 
$
19,221

 
$
17,217

Non-DoD
1,941

 
2,212

 
2,382

Foreign Military Sales (FMS)*
876

 
1,170

 
1,206

Total U.S. government
$
23,263

 
$
22,603

 
$
20,805

Percent of total revenues
72
%
 
69
%
 
66
%
* In addition to our direct international sales, we sell to foreign governments through the FMS program. Under the FMS program, we contract with and are paid by the U.S. government and the U.S. government assumes the risk of collection from the foreign government customer.
We perform our U.S. government business under fixed-price, cost-reimbursement and time-and-materials contracts. Our production contracts are primarily fixed-price. Under these contracts, we agree to perform a specific scope of work for a fixed amount. Contracts for research, engineering, repair and maintenance and other services are typically cost-reimbursement or time-and-materials. Under cost-reimbursement contracts, the customer reimburses contract costs and pays a fixed fee or an incentive- or award-based fee. These fees are determined by our ability to achieve targets set in the contract, such as cost, quality, schedule and performance. Under time-and-materials contracts, the customer pays a fixed hourly rate for direct labor and reimburses us for material costs.
Fixed-price contracts accounted for approximately 55 percent of our U.S. government business in 2011 and 56 percent in 2012; cost-reimbursement contracts accounted for approximately 38 percent in 2011 and 39 percent in 2012; and time-and-materials contracts accounted for approximately 7 percent in 2011 and 5 percent in 2012.
Each of these contract types presents advantages and disadvantages. Fixed-price contracts typically have higher fee levels as we assume more risks, such as any cost overruns under our control. These types of contracts offer additional profits when we complete the work for less than the contract amount. Cost-reimbursement contracts generally subject us to lower risk. Accordingly, the negotiated base fees are usually lower than on fixed-price contracts. Cost-reimbursement contracts also can include fee provisions that allow the customer to make additional payments when we satisfy specific performance criteria. Additionally, not all costs are allowable under these types of contracts and the government carefully reviews the costs we charge. Under time-and-materials contracts, our profit may vary if actual labor-hour costs vary significantly from the negotiated rates. Additionally, because these contracts can provide little or no fee for managing material costs, the content mix can impact the profit margins.
U.S. COMMERCIAL
Our U.S. commercial revenues were $3.2 billion in 2010, $3.8 billion in 2011 and $4.2 billion in 2012. This represented approximately 10 percent of our consolidated revenues in 2010, 12 percent in 2011 and 13 percent in 2012. The majority of these revenues are for business-jet aircraft and services where our customer base consists of individuals and public and privately held companies representing a wide range of industries. Other commercial products include drivetrain components and aftermarket parts in our Combat Systems group, Jones Act ships in our Marine Systems group and a variety of products and services in our Information Systems and Technology group.


13


INTERNATIONAL
Our direct revenues from government and commercial customers outside the United States were $6 billion in 2010, $6.3 billion in 2011 and $6.5 billion in 2012. This represented approximately 18 percent of our consolidated revenues in 2010, 19 percent in 2011 and 21 percent in 2012.
We conduct business with government customers around the world with primary subsidiary operations in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Our non-U.S. defense subsidiaries are committed to maintaining long-term relationships with their respective governments and have distinguished themselves as principal regional suppliers and employers.
Our international commercial business consists primarily of business-jet aircraft exports and worldwide aircraft services. The market for business-jet aircraft and related services outside North America has expanded significantly in recent years, particularly in emerging markets. While the installed base of aircraft is concentrated in North America, orders from international customers represent a growing segment of our aircraft business with approximately 60 percent of total backlog in 2012.
For a discussion of the risks associated with conducting business in international locations, see Risk Factors contained in Part I, Item 1A, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. For information regarding revenues and assets by geographic region, see Note Q to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
COMPETITION

Several factors determine our ability to compete successfully in the defense and business-aviation markets. While customers’ evaluation criteria vary, the principal competitive elements include:

the technical excellence, reliability and cost competitiveness of our products and services;
our ability to innovate and develop new products and technology that improve mission performance and adapt to dynamic threats;
successful program execution and on-time delivery of complex, integrated systems;
our global footprint and accessibility to customers;
our indigenous presence in the countries of several key customers;
the reputation and customer confidence derived from our past performance; and
the successful management of customer relationships.

DEFENSE MARKET COMPETITION
The U.S. government contracts with numerous domestic and foreign companies for products and services. We compete against other large platform and system-integration contractors as well as smaller companies that specialize in a particular technology or capability. Internationally, we compete with global defense contractors’ exports and the offerings of private and state-owned defense manufacturers based in the countries where we operate. Our Combat Systems group competes with a large number of domestic and foreign businesses. Our Marine Systems group has one primary competitor with which it also partners on the Virginia-class submarine program. Our Information Systems and Technology group competes with many companies, from large defense companies to small niche competitors with specialized technologies. The operating cycle of many of our major platform programs can result in sustained periods of program continuity when we perform successfully.
We are involved in teaming and subcontracting relationships with some of our competitors. Competitions for major defense programs often require companies to form teams to bring together broad capabilities to meet the customer’s requirements. Opportunities associated with these programs include roles as the

14


program’s integrator, overseeing and coordinating the efforts of all participants on the team, or as a provider of a specific program component or subsystem element.

BUSINESS-JET AIRCRAFT MARKET COMPETITION
The Aerospace group has several competitors for each of its Gulfstream products, with more competitors for the shorter-range aircraft. Key competitive factors include aircraft safety, reliability and performance; comfort and in-flight productivity; service quality, global footprint and responsiveness; technological and new-product innovation; and price. We believe that Gulfstream competes effectively in all of these areas.
The Aerospace group competes worldwide in its business-jet aircraft services business primarily on the basis of price, quality and timeliness. In its maintenance, repair and FBO businesses, the group competes with several other large companies as well as a number of smaller companies, particularly in the maintenance business. In its completions business, the group competes with other OEMs, as well as third-party providers.
 
BACKLOG
Our total backlog represents the estimated remaining value of work to be performed under firm contracts and includes funded and unfunded portions. For additional discussion of backlog, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contained in Part II, Item 7, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Summary backlog information for each of our business groups follows:
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012 Total
Backlog Not
Expected to Be
Completed in 2013
December 31
2011
 
2012
 
  
Funded    
 
Unfunded    
 
Total    
 
Funded    
 
Unfunded  
 
Total    
 
Aerospace
$
17,618

 
$
289

 
$
17,907

 
$
15,458

 
$
209

 
$
15,667

 
$
9,886

Combat Systems
10,283

 
1,137

 
11,420

 
7,442

 
1,298

 
8,740

 
3,221

Marine Systems
9,364

 
9,140

 
18,504

 
13,495

 
3,606

 
17,101

 
11,323

Information Systems and Technology
7,434

 
2,145

 
9,579

 
8,130

 
1,643

 
9,773

 
2,799

Total backlog
$
44,699

 
$
12,711

 
$
57,410

 
$
44,525


$
6,756

 
$
51,281

 
$
27,229

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
To foster innovative product development and evolution, we conduct sustained R&D activities as part of our normal business operations. In the commercial sector, most of our Aerospace group’s R&D activities support Gulfstream’s product enhancement and development programs. In our U.S. defense businesses, we conduct customer-sponsored R&D activities under government contracts and company-sponsored R&D. In accordance with government regulations, we recover a significant portion of company-sponsored R&D expenditures through overhead charges to U.S. government contracts. For more information on our R&D activities, including our expenditures for the past three years, see Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

15


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
We develop technology, manufacturing processes and systems-integration practices. In addition to owning a large portfolio of proprietary intellectual property, we license some intellectual property rights to and from others. The U.S. government holds licenses to many of our patents developed in the performance of U.S. government contracts, and it may use or authorize others to use the inventions covered by these patents. Although these intellectual property rights are important to the operation of our business, no existing patent, license or other intellectual property right is of such importance that its loss or termination would have a material impact on our business.
EMPLOYEES
On December 31, 2012, we and our subsidiaries had 92,200 employees, approximately one-fifth of whom work under collective agreements with various labor unions and worker representatives. Agreements covering approximately 6 percent of total employees are due to expire in 2013. Historically, we have renegotiated labor agreements without any significant disruption to operating activities.
RAW MATERIALS, SUPPLIERS AND SEASONALITY
We depend on suppliers and subcontractors for raw materials, components and subsystems. These supply networks can experience price fluctuations and capacity constraints, which can put pressure on our costs. Effective management and oversight of suppliers and subcontractors is an important element of our successful performance. We attempt to mitigate these risks with our suppliers by entering into long-term agreements and leveraging company-wide agreements to achieve economies of scale, and by negotiating flexible pricing terms in our customer contracts. We have not experienced, and do not foresee, significant difficulties in obtaining the materials, components or supplies necessary for our business operations.
Our business is not generally seasonal in nature. The timing of contract awards, the availability of funding from the customer, the incurrence of contract costs and unit deliveries are the primary drivers of our revenue recognition. In the United States, these factors are influenced by the federal government’s budget cycle. Internationally, work for many of our government customers is weighted toward the end of the calendar year, generally resulting in increasing revenues and earnings over the course of the year.
 
REGULATORY MATTERS
U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
U.S. government contracts are subject to procurement laws and regulations. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) govern the majority of our contracts. The FAR mandates uniform policies and procedures for U.S. government acquisitions and purchased services. Also, individual agencies can have acquisition regulations that provide implementing language for the FAR or that supplement the FAR. For example, the DoD implements the FAR through the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation supplement (DFARs). For all federal government entities, the FAR regulates the phases of any product or service acquisition, including:

acquisition planning,
competition requirements,
contractor qualifications,
protection of source selection and vendor information, and
acquisition procedures.

16


In addition, the FAR addresses the allowability of our costs, while the CAS address how those costs can be allocated to contracts. The FAR subjects us to audits and other government reviews covering issues such as cost, performance and accounting practices relating to our contracts.
INTERNATIONAL
Our international sales are subject to the applicable foreign government regulations and procurement policies and practices, as well as U.S. policies and regulations. We are also subject to regulations governing investments, exchange controls, repatriation of earnings and import-export control.
BUSINESS-JET AIRCRAFT
The Aerospace group is subject to FAA regulation in the United States and other similar aviation regulatory authorities internationally, including the Civil Aviation Administration of Israel (CAAI), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC). For an aircraft to be manufactured and sold, the model must receive a type certificate from the appropriate aviation authority and each aircraft must receive a certificate of airworthiness. Aircraft outfitting and completions also require approval by the appropriate aviation authority, which often is accomplished through a supplemental type certificate. Aviation authorities can require changes to a specific aircraft or model type before granting approval. Maintenance facilities and charter operations must be licensed by aviation authorities as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL
We are subject to a variety of federal, state, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations. These laws and regulations cover the discharge, treatment, storage, disposal, investigation and remediation of certain materials, substances and wastes. We are directly or indirectly involved in environmental investigations or remediation at some of our current and former facilities and at third-party sites that we do not own but where we have been designated a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or a state environmental agency. As a PRP, we potentially are liable to the government or third parties for the cost of remediating contamination at a relevant site. In cases where we have been designated a PRP, generally we seek to mitigate these environmental liabilities through available insurance coverage and by pursuing appropriate cost-recovery actions. In the unlikely event we are required to fully fund the remediation of a site, the current statutory framework would allow us to pursue contributions from other PRPs. We regularly assess our compliance status and management of environmental matters.
Operating and maintenance costs associated with environmental compliance and management of contaminated sites are a normal, recurring part of our operations. Historically, these costs have not been material. Environmental costs often are recoverable under our contracts with the U.S. government. Based on information currently available and current U.S. government policies relating to cost recovery, we do not expect continued compliance with environmental regulations to have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. For additional information relating to the impact of environmental matters, see Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION
We file several types of reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These reports and information include an annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and proxy statements. Free copies of these items are made available on our website (www.generaldynamics.com) as soon as practicable and through the General Dynamics investor relations office at (703) 876-3583.

17


These items also can be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room is available by calling the SEC at (800) SEC-0330. The SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information.
 
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

An investment in our common stock or debt securities is subject to risks and uncertainties. Investors should consider the following factors, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before deciding whether to purchase our securities.

Investment risks can be market-wide as well as unique to a specific industry or company. The market risks faced by an investor in our stock are similar to the uncertainties faced by investors in a broad range of industries. There are some risks that apply more specifically to our business.

Because three of our four business groups serve the defense market, our revenues are concentrated with the U.S. government. This customer relationship involves some specific risks. In addition, our sales to international customers expose us to different financial and legal risks. Despite the varying nature of our U.S. and international defense and business-aviation operations and the markets they serve, each group shares some common risks, such as the ongoing development of high-technology products and the price, availability and quality of commodities and subsystems.

The U.S. government provides a significant portion of our revenues. In each of the past three years, approximately two-thirds of our revenues were from the U.S. government. U.S. defense spending is driven by threats to national security. While the country has been under an elevated threat level for more than a decade, competing demands for federal funds could pressure all areas of spending. A decrease in U.S. government defense spending or changes in spending allocation could result in one or more of our programs being reduced, delayed or terminated, which could have some impact on our financial performance.

Several factors are currently affecting U.S. defense spending, including:

the fact that the Congress has not passed a fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget, resulting in the U.S. government, including the DoD, operating under a continuing resolution (CR) that provides funding at FY 2012 levels through March 2013;
a $487 billion, or approximately 8 percent, reduction to previously-planned defense funding over the next decade as mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). These cuts were incorporated into the FY 2013 proposed defense budget; and
a sequester mechanism, also part of the BCA, that would impose an additional $500 billion of defense cuts over nine years starting in FY 2013, which represents approximately 9 percent of planned defense funding over the period.

While we are unable to predict the exact impact on our programs or financial outlook, these factors, particularly the funding reductions of the magnitude imposed by the sequester mechanism as written, could in the aggregate have material adverse operational and financial consequences, depending on how the cuts are allocated across the budget. Due to its shorter-cycle businesses, the Information Systems and Technology outlook is more sensitive than our other defense groups to any additional budget cuts that may occur. For additional information relating to the U.S. defense budget, see the Business Environment section of

18


Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contained in Part II, Item 7, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

U.S. government contracts are not always fully funded at inception and are subject to termination. Our U.S. government revenues are funded by agency budgets that operate on an October-to-September fiscal year. Early each calendar year, the President of the United States presents to the Congress the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This budget proposes funding levels for every federal agency and is the result of months of policy and program reviews throughout the Executive branch. For the remainder of the year, the appropriations and authorization committees of the Congress review the President’s budget proposals and establish the funding levels for the upcoming fiscal year. Once these levels are enacted into law, the Executive Office of the President administers the funds to the agencies.

There are two primary risks associated with the U.S. government budget cycle. First, the annual process may be delayed or disrupted. For example, changes in congressional schedules due to elections or other legislative priorities, or negotiations for program funding levels can interrupt the process. If the annual budget is not approved by the beginning of the government fiscal year, portions of the U.S. government can shut down or operate under a CR that maintains spending at prior year levels, which can impact funding for our programs and timing of new awards. Second, the Congress typically appropriates funds on a fiscal-year basis, even though contract performance may extend over many years. Future revenues under existing multi-year contracts are conditioned on the continuing availability of congressional appropriations. Changes in appropriations in subsequent years may impact the funding available for these programs. Delays or changes in funding can impact the timing of available funds or lead to changes in program content.

In addition, U.S. government contracts generally permit the government to terminate a contract, in whole or in part, for convenience. If a contract is terminated for convenience, a contractor usually is entitled to receive payments for its allowable costs and the proportionate share of fees or earnings for the work performed. The government may also terminate a contract for default in the event of a breach by the contractor. If a contract is terminated for default, the government in most cases pays only for the work it has accepted. The loss of anticipated funding or the termination of multiple or large programs could have a material adverse effect on our future revenues and earnings.

Government contractors are subject to audit by the U.S. government. U.S. government agencies routinely audit and review government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. The U.S. government also reviews the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, labor, accounting and information systems. In some cases, audits may result in contractor costs not being reimbursed or subject to repayment. If an audit or investigation were to result in allegations against a contractor of improper or illegal activities, civil or criminal penalties and administrative sanctions could result, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines, and suspension or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. government. In addition, reputational harm could result if allegations of impropriety were made.

Our Aerospace group is subject to changing customer demand for business aircraft. Our Aerospace group’s business-jet market is driven by the demand for business-aviation products and services by business, individual and government customers in the United States and around the world. The group’s results also depend on other factors, including general economic conditions, the availability of credit and trends in capital goods markets. In addition, if customers default on existing contracts and the contracts are not replaced, the group’s anticipated revenues and profitability could be materially reduced as a result.

19


 
Earnings and margins depend on our ability to perform under our contracts. When agreeing to contractual terms, our management team makes assumptions and projections about future conditions or events. These projections assess:

the productivity and availability of labor,
the complexity of the work to be performed,
the cost and availability of materials and components, and
schedule requirements.
If there is a significant change in one or more of these circumstances or estimates, or if the risks under our contracts are not managed adequately, the profitability of our contracts may be adversely affected. This could affect our earnings and margins materially.

Our earnings and margins depend in part on subcontractor and vendor performance. We rely on other companies to provide materials, components and subsystems for our products. Subcontractors also perform some of the services that we provide to our customers. We depend on these subcontractors and vendors to meet our contractual obligations in full compliance with customer requirements. We manage our supplier base carefully to avoid customer problems. However, we sometimes rely on only one or two sources of supply that, if disrupted, could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our customer commitments. Our ability to perform our obligations as a prime contractor may be adversely affected if one or more of these suppliers is unable to provide the agreed-upon supplies or perform the agreed-upon services in a timely and cost-effective manner.

International sales and operations are subject to different, and sometimes greater, risks that may be associated with doing business in foreign countries. In some countries there is increased chance for economic, legal or political changes, and procurement procedures may be less robust or mature, which may complicate the contracting process. Our international business may be sensitive to changes in a foreign government’s budgets, leadership and national priorities, including the current European fiscal condition. International transactions can involve increased financial and legal risks arising from foreign exchange-rate variability and differing legal systems. An unfavorable event or trend in any one or more of these factors could materially adversely affect revenues and earnings associated with our international business. In addition, some international government customers require contractors to enter into letters of credit, performance or surety bonds, bank guarantees and other similar arrangements or to agree to specific in-country purchases, manufacturing agreements or financial support arrangements, known as offsets, that require us to satisfy certain requirements. If we do not satisfy these requirements, our future revenues and earnings may be materially adversely affected.

Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to develop new products and technologies and maintain a qualified workforce to meet the needs of our customers. Many of the products and services we provide involve sophisticated technologies and engineering, with related complex manufacturing and system integration processes. Our customers’ requirements change and evolve regularly. Accordingly, our future performance depends, in part, on our ability to continue to develop, manufacture and provide innovative products and services and bring those offerings to market quickly at cost-effective prices. Because of the highly specialized nature of our business, we must hire and retain the skilled and qualified personnel necessary to perform the services required by our customers. If we are unable to develop new products that meet customers’ changing needs or successfully attract and retain qualified personnel, our future revenues and earnings may be materially adversely affected.

20



We have made and expect to continue to make investments, including acquisitions and joint ventures, that involve risks and uncertainties. When evaluating potential mergers and acquisitions, we make judgments regarding the value of business opportunities, technologies and other assets and the risks and costs of potential liabilities based on information available to us at the time of the transaction. Whether we realize the anticipated benefits from these transactions depends on multiple factors, including our integration of the businesses involved, the performance of the underlying products, capabilities or technologies, market conditions following the acquisition and acquired liabilities. These factors could materially adversely affect our financial results, including future impairment charges.

Our business could be negatively impacted by cyber security events and other disruptions. As a defense contractor, we face various cyber security threats, including threats to our information technology infrastructure and attempts to gain access to our proprietary or classified information, as well as threats to physical security. We also design and manage information technology systems for various customers. We generally face the same security threats for these systems as for our own. Accordingly, we maintain information security policies and procedures for managing all systems. If any of these threats were to materialize, the event could cause harm to our business and our reputation and challenge our eligibility for future work on sensitive or classified systems for U.S. government customers, as well as negatively impact our results of operations materially.

21


FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “believes,” “scheduled,” “outlook,” “estimates,” “should” and variations of these words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These include but are not limited to projections of revenues, earnings, operating margins, segment performance, cash flows, contract awards, aircraft production, deliveries and backlog. Forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual future results and trends may differ materially from what is forecast in forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation, the risk factors discussed in this section.

All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report or, in the case of any document incorporated by reference, the date of that document. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to General Dynamics or any person acting on our behalf are qualified by the cautionary statements in this section. We do not undertake any obligation to update or publicly release any revisions to forward-looking statements to reflect events, circumstances or changes in expectations after the date of this report.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

We operate in a number of offices, manufacturing plants, laboratories, warehouses and other facilities in the United States and abroad. We believe our facilities are adequate for our present needs and, given planned improvements and construction, expect them to remain adequate for the foreseeable future.

On December 31, 2012, our business groups had primary operations at the following locations:
Aerospace – Lincoln and Long Beach, California; West Palm Beach, Florida; Brunswick and Savannah, Georgia; Cahokia, Illinois; Bedford and Westfield, Massachusetts; Las Vegas, Nevada; Teterboro, New Jersey; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Appleton, Wisconsin; Sorocaba, Brazil; Beijing and Hong Kong, China; Dusseldorf, Germany; Mexicali, Mexico; Moscow, Russia; Singapore; Basel, Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Luton, United Kingdom.
Combat Systems – Anniston, Alabama; East Camden and Hampton, Arkansas; Healdsburg, California; Crawfordsville, St. Petersburg and Tallahassee, Florida; Chicago and Marion, Illinois; Saco, Maine; Westminster, Maryland; Shelby Township, Sterling Heights and Troy, Michigan; Joplin, Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; Charlotte, North Carolina; Lima, Ohio; Eynon, Red Lion and Scranton, Pennsylvania; Edgefield and Ladson, South Carolina; Garland, Texas; Burlington and Williston, Vermont; Marion and Woodbridge, Virginia; Auburn, Washington; Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Vienna, Austria; Edmonton, London, La Gardeur, St. Augustin and Valleyfield, Canada; St. Etienne, France; Kaiserslautern, Germany; Granada, La Coruna, Oviedo, Sevilla and Trubia, Spain; Kreuzlingen, Switzerland.

22


Marine Systems – San Diego, California; Groton and New London, Connecticut; Jacksonville, Florida; Bath and Brunswick, Maine; North Kingstown, Rhode Island; Chesapeake and Norfolk, Virginia; Mexicali, Mexico.
Information Systems and Technology – Cullman, Alabama; Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona; San Diego and Santa Clara, California; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Orlando and Tampa, Florida; Coralville, Iowa; Lawrence, Kansas; Annapolis Junction and Towson, Maryland; Needham, Pittsfield and Taunton, Massachusetts; Ypsilanti, Michigan; Bloomington, Minnesota; Nashua, New Hampshire; Florham Park, New Jersey; Greensboro and Newton, North Carolina; Kilgore, Texas; Arlington, Chantilly, Chesapeake, Fairfax, Herndon and Richmond, Virginia; Calgary and Ottawa, Canada; Tallinn, Estonia; Oakdale, St. Leonards, Tewkesbury and Throckmorton, United Kingdom.
A summary of floor space by business group on December 31, 2012, follows:
 
(Square feet in millions)
Company-owned
Facilities
 
Leased
Facilities
 
Government-owned
Facilities
 
Total    
Aerospace
4.3

 
4.2

 

 
8.5

Combat Systems
8.3

 
5.3

 
7.7

 
21.3

Marine Systems
8.2

 
2.2

 

 
10.4

Information Systems and Technology
3.2

 
8.6

 
0.9

 
12.7

Total
24.0

 
20.3

 
8.6

 
52.9



ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

For information relating to legal proceedings, see Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.


23


PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE COMPANY’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
The high and low sales prices of our common stock and the cash dividends declared on our common stock for each quarter of 2011 and 2012 are included in the Supplementary Data contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
On January 27, 2013, there were approximately 14,000 holders of record of our common stock.
For information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans, see Note O to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We did not make any unregistered sales of equity securities in 2012.
On June 7, 2012, with 2.4 million shares remaining under a prior authorization, the board of directors authorized management to repurchase 10 million shares of common stock on the open market. We did not repurchase any shares in the fourth quarter and approximately 10.9 million shares remain authorized for repurchase. Unless terminated or extended earlier by resolution of the board of directors, the program will expire when the number of authorized shares has been repurchased.
For additional information relating to our repurchases of common stock during the past three years, see Financial Condition, Liquidity and Capital Resources – Financing Activities – Share Repurchases contained in Part II, Item 7, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
The following performance graph compares the cumulative total return to shareholders on our common stock, assuming reinvestment of dividends, with similar returns for the Standard & Poor’s® 500 Index and the Standard & Poor’s® Aerospace & Defense Index, both of which include General Dynamics.


24


ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following table presents selected historical financial data derived from the Consolidated Financial Statements and other company information for each of the five years presented. This information should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes thereto.
(Dollars and shares in millions, except per-share and employee amounts)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2008
 
2009
 
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Summary of Operations
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revenues
$
29,300

 
$
31,981

 
$
32,466

 
$
32,677

 
$
31,513

Operating earnings
3,653

 
3,675

 
3,945

 
3,826

 
833

Operating margin
12.5
%
 
11.5
%
 
12.2
%
 
11.7
%
 
2.6
 %
Interest, net
(66
)
 
(160
)
 
(157
)
 
(141
)
 
(156
)
Provision for income taxes, net
1,126

 
1,106

 
1,162

 
1,166

 
873

Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
2,478

 
2,407

 
2,628

 
2,552

 
(332
)
Return on sales (a)
8.5
%
 
7.5
%
 
8.1
%
 
7.8
%
 
(1.1
)%
Discontinued operations, net of tax
(19
)
 
(13
)
 
(4
)
 
(26
)
 

Net earnings (loss)
2,459

 
2,394

 
2,624

 
2,526

 
(332
)
Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Continuing operations (b)
6.22

 
6.20

 
6.82

 
6.94

 
(0.94
)
Net earnings (loss) (b)
6.17

 
6.17

 
6.81

 
6.87

 
(0.94
)
Cash Flows
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
3,124

 
$
2,855

 
$
2,986

 
$
3,238

 
$
2,687

Net cash used by investing activities
(3,663
)
 
(1,392
)
 
(408
)
 
(1,974
)
 
(656
)
Net cash used by financing activities
(718
)
 
(806
)
 
(2,226
)
 
(1,201
)
 
(1,382
)
Net cash used by discontinued operations
(13
)
 
(15
)
 
(2
)
 
(27
)
 
(2
)
Cash dividends declared per common share
1.40

 
1.52

 
1.68

 
1.88

 
2.04

Financial Position
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and equivalents
$
1,621

 
$
2,263

 
$
2,613

 
$
2,649

 
$
3,296

Total assets
28,373

 
31,077

 
32,545

 
34,883

 
34,309

Short- and long-term debt
4,024

 
3,864

 
3,203

 
3,930

 
3,909

Shareholders’ equity
10,053

 
12,423

 
13,316

 
13,232

 
11,390

Debt-to-equity (c)
40.0
%
 
31.1
%
 
24.1
%
 
29.7
%
 
34.3
 %
Book value per share (d)
26.00

 
32.21

 
35.79

 
37.12

 
32.20

Operating working capital (e)
624

 
948

 
1,104

 
1,195

 
746

Other Information
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Free cash flow from operations (f)
$
2,634

 
$
2,470

 
$
2,616

 
$
2,780

 
$
2,237

Return on invested capital (g)
18.5
%
 
17.8
%
 
17.5
%
 
16.5
%
 
(0.4
)%
Funded backlog
51,712

 
45,856

 
43,379

 
44,699

 
44,525

Total backlog
74,127

 
65,545

 
59,561

 
57,410

 
51,281

Shares outstanding
386.7

 
385.7

 
372.1

 
356.4

 
353.7

Weighted average shares outstanding:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
396.2

 
385.5

 
381.2

 
364.1

 
353.3

Diluted
398.7

 
387.9

 
385.2

 
367.5

 
353.3

Employees
92,300

 
91,700

 
90,000

 
95,100

 
92,200

Sales per employee (h)
342,600

 
346,500

 
358,100

 
358,600

 
337,300

(a)
Return on sales is calculated as earnings (loss) from continuing operations divided by revenues.
(b)
2012 amounts exclude dilutive effect of stock options and restricted stock as it would be antidilutive.
(c)
Debt-to-equity ratio is calculated as total debt divided by total equity as of year end.
(d)
Book value per share is calculated as total equity divided by total outstanding shares as of year end.
(e)
Operating working capital is calculated as accounts receivable, contracts in process (excluding “other contract costs” - see Note G to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8) and inventories less accounts payable, customer advances and deposits, and liabilities for salaries and wages.
(f)
See Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, for a reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities to free cash flow from operations.
(g)
See Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, for the calculation of return on invested capital.
(h)
Sales per employee is calculated as revenues for the past 12 months divided by the average number of employees for the period.

25



(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts or unless otherwise noted)
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
For an overview of our business groups, including a discussion of products and services provided, see the Business discussion contained in Part I, Item 1, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
As approximately two-thirds of our revenues are from the U.S. government, our financial performance is impacted by the level of U.S. defense spending. Currently, the U.S. government, including the Department of Defense (DoD), is operating under a continuing resolution (CR) that provides funding at fiscal year (FY) 2012 levels through March 2013. A CR does not generally fund new program starts or new multi-year contracts. A series of CRs over the past several years has negatively impacted the flow of contract awards, particularly in our shorter-cycle Information Systems and Technology business group.
While U.S. military budgets are generally driven by national security requirements, the country’s current fiscal shortfall is negatively influencing defense spending. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) mandated a $487 billion, or approximately 8 percent, reduction to previously-planned defense funding over the next decade. These cuts were incorporated into the FY 2013 proposed defense budget. In addition, the BCA included a sequester mechanism that would impose an additional $500 billion of defense cuts over nine years starting in FY 2013, which represents approximately 9 percent of planned defense funding over the period. If sequestration is triggered, the FY 2013 defense budget could be lowered by as much as $40 to $50 billion, or approximately 9 percent. However, how these reductions would be implemented has not been defined. Congress recently extended the deadline for resolving sequestration to March 1, 2013. As of February 7, 2013, a solution has not been identified.
For FY 2013, the President requested total defense funding of $525 billion, which is down from FY 2012 funding of $531 billion. We anticipate that Congress will consider the FY 2013 defense spending bill in conjunction with the expiration of the current CR at the end of March. At that time, the CR will either be extended through the government’s year end, thereby keeping FY 2013 spending at FY 2012 levels, or the FY 2013 funding bill will be passed. The President has not yet published the FY 2014 budget request, although the FY 2014 topline mandated by budget reduction legislation is $527 billion. Because budget expenditures lag congressional funding, our associated revenues and earnings in a given year do not correspond directly with the current year budgeted amounts.
In addition to the impact of U.S. budget deficit reduction negotiations, defense spending decisions over the next several years may also be shaped by the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), an analysis of military priorities and requirements commissioned every four years. We expect defense funding requirements to continue to be influenced by the following:

the imperative to provide support for the warfighter in the face of threats posed by an uncertain global security environment, including the DoD’s increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region;
the number of troops deployed globally, coupled with the overall size of the U.S. military;
the need to reset and replenish equipment and supplies damaged and consumed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001; and
the need to modernize defense infrastructure to address the evolving requirements of modern-day warfare, including an emphasis on soldier survivability, enhanced battlefield communications and new

26


technologies in the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, unmanned systems and cyberspace arenas.
Despite these budget uncertainties, the long-term outlook for our U.S. defense business is buoyed by the relevance of our programs to the military’s funding priorities, the diversity of our programs and customers within the budget, our insight into customer requirements stemming from our incumbency on core programs, our ability to evolve our products to address a fast-changing threat environment and our proven track record of successful contract execution.
We continue to pursue opportunities presented by international demand for military equipment and information technologies from our indigenous international operations and through exports from our U.S. businesses. While the revenue potential can be significant, international defense budgets, much like U.S. budgets, are subject to unpredictable issues of contract award timing, changing priorities and overall spending pressures. As a result of the demonstrated success of our products and services, we would expect our international sales and exports to grow subject to overall economic conditions.
In our Aerospace group, business-jet market conditions were steady in 2012. The group benefited from robust flying hours across the installed base of Gulfstream aircraft, improved large-cabin order interest from North American corporate customers and lower customer contract defaults. We expect our continued investment in new aircraft products to support Aerospace’s long-term growth, as evidenced by the group’s newest aircraft offerings, the G280 and the G650. Similarly, we believe that aircraft-service revenues provide the group diversified exposure to aftermarket sales fueled by continued growth in the global installed business-jet fleet.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
An understanding of our accounting practices is important to an evaluation of our operating results. We recognize the majority of our revenues using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. The following paragraphs explain how this method is applied in recognizing revenues and operating costs in our Aerospace and defense business groups.
In the Aerospace group, contracts for new aircraft have two major phases: the manufacture of the “green” aircraft and the aircraft’s outfitting, which includes exterior painting and installation of customer-selected interiors. We record revenues on these contracts at the completion of these two phases: when green aircraft are delivered to and accepted by the customer, and when the customer accepts final delivery of the outfitted aircraft. Revenues in the Aerospace group’s other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) completions and services businesses are recognized as work progresses or upon delivery of services. Changes in revenues result from the number and mix of new aircraft deliveries (green and outfitted), progress on aircraft completions and the level of aircraft service activity during the period.
The majority of the Aerospace group’s operating costs relates to new aircraft production for firm orders and consists of labor, material and overhead costs. The costs are accumulated in production lots and recognized as operating costs at green aircraft delivery based on the estimated average unit cost in a production lot. While changes in the estimated average unit cost for a production lot impact the level of operating costs, the amount of operating costs reported in a given period is based largely on the number and type of aircraft delivered. Operating costs in the Aerospace group’s completions and services businesses are generally recognized as incurred.

27


For new aircraft, operating earnings and margins are a function of the prices of our aircraft, our operational efficiency in manufacturing and outfitting the aircraft and the mix of aircraft deliveries between the higher-margin large-cabin and lower-margin mid-cabin aircraft. Additional factors affecting the group’s earnings and margins include the volume, mix and profitability of completions and services work performed, the market for pre-owned aircraft and the level of general and administrative (G&A) and net research and development (R&D) costs incurred by the group.
In the defense groups, revenue on long-term government contracts is recognized as work progresses, either as products are produced or services are rendered. As a result, changes in revenues are discussed generally in terms of volume, typically measured by the level of activity on individual contracts or programs. Year-over-year variances attributed to volume are due to changes in production or service levels and delivery schedules.
Operating costs for the defense groups consist of labor, material, subcontractor and overhead costs and are generally recognized as incurred. Variances in costs recognized from period to period primarily reflect increases and decreases in production or activity levels on individual contracts and, therefore, result largely from the same factors that drive variances in revenues.
Operating earnings and margins in the defense groups are driven by changes in volume, performance or contract mix. Performance refers to changes in profitability based on revisions to estimates at completion on individual contracts. These revisions may result from increases or decreases to the estimated value of the contract, the estimated costs to complete or both. Therefore, changes in costs incurred in the period do not necessarily impact profitability. It is only when total estimated costs at completion change that profitability may be impacted. Contract mix refers to changes in the volume of higher- vs. lower-margin work. Higher or lower margins can be inherent in the contract type (e.g., fixed-price/cost-reimbursable) or type of work (e.g., development/production).


28


CONSOLIDATED OVERVIEW
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
  
Revenues
 
Operating
 Earnings
 
Revenues
 
Operating
 Earnings
 
Revenues
 
Operating 
Earnings
Aerospace
$
5,299

 
$
860

 
$
5,998

 
$
729

 
$
6,912

 
$
858

Combat Systems
8,878

 
1,275

 
8,827

 
1,283

 
7,992

 
663

Marine Systems
6,677

 
674

 
6,631

 
691

 
6,592

 
750

Information Systems and Technology
11,612

 
1,219

 
11,221

 
1,200

 
10,017

 
(1,369
)
Corporate

 
(83
)
 

 
(77
)
 

 
(69
)
 
$
32,466

 
$
3,945

 
$
32,677

 
$
3,826

 
$
31,513

 
$
833


REVIEW OF 2011 VS. 2012
Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
32,677

 
$
31,513

 
$
(1,164
)
 
(3.6
)%
Operating costs and expenses
28,851

 
30,680

 
1,829

 
6.3
 %
Operating earnings
3,826

 
833

 
(2,993
)
 
(78.2
)%
Operating margins
11.7
%
 
2.6
%
 
 
 
 
Our revenues decreased in 2012 compared with 2011. Revenues decreased in the Information Systems and Technology’s mobile communication systems business and on several international wheeled vehicle contracts in the Combat Systems group. These decreases were partially offset by higher revenues in the Aerospace group due to increased deliveries of G650 aircraft. Operating costs increased in 2012 due to several discrete charges discussed below in conjunction with our business groups’ operating results, most significantly the $2 billion goodwill impairment recorded in the Information Systems and Technology group. As a result, operating earnings and margins decreased in 2012.
Product Revenues and Operating Costs

Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
21,440

 
$
19,784

 
$
(1,656
)
 
(7.7
)%
Operating costs
17,230

 
16,228

 
(1,002
)
 
(5.8
)%

Product revenues were lower in 2012 compared with 2011. The decrease in product revenues consisted of the following:

Aircraft manufacturing and outfitting
$
791

Mobile communication products
(1,177
)
European vehicle production
(636
)
Ship construction
(404
)
Other, net
(230
)
Total decrease
$
(1,656
)
In 2012, aircraft manufacturing and outfitting revenues increased due to green deliveries of G650 aircraft, which began in the fourth quarter of 2011. More than offsetting this increase, mobile communication

29


products revenues decreased due to protracted customer acquisition cycles and a slower than expected transition to follow-on work on several programs. Lower European vehicle production revenues were largely due to several contracts nearing completion and the revenue impact of the termination of the contract to provide Pandur vehicles to the Portuguese government. Ship construction revenues decreased due to the completion of the T-AKE combat-logistics ship program and timing of activity on the Virginia-class submarine program as the group transitions from the Block II to the Block III contract.
Product operating costs were lower in 2012 compared with 2011. The change in product operating costs primarily due to volume consisted of the following:

Primary changes due to volume:
 
  Aircraft manufacturing and outfitting
$
585

  Mobile communication products
(850
)
  European vehicle production
(377
)
  Ship construction
(422
)
 
(1,064
)
Discrete charges
179

Other changes, net
(117
)
Total decrease
$
(1,002
)
Discrete charges discussed in conjunction with the Combat Systems and Information Systems and Technology business groups’ operating results include $89 related to the termination of the contract to provide Pandur vehicles to the Portuguese government, $58 of ruggedized hardware inventory write-downs for products that ceased production in 2012 and $32 for cost growth associated with the demonstration phase of the Specialist Vehicle (SV) program for the U.K. Ministry of Defence. No other changes were material.
Service Revenues and Operating Costs

Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
11,237

 
$
11,729

 
$
492

 
4.4
%
Operating costs
9,591

 
10,182

 
591

 
6.2
%

Service revenues increased in 2012 compared with 2011. The increase in service revenues consisted of the following:

Ship engineering and repair
$
358

Mobile communication support
91

Other, net
43

Total increase
$
492

In 2012, the increase in ship engineering and repair revenues was driven by the recent acquisition of two East Coast surface-ship repair operations and higher volume on the U.S. Navy’s Ohio-class replacement engineering program. Mobile communication support revenues increased in 2012 primarily due to higher maintenance and long-term support activity on the U.K.-based Bowman communications systems program.

30


Service operating costs increased in 2012 compared with 2011. The increase in service operating costs primarily due to volume consisted of the following:

Primary changes due to volume:
 
  Ship engineering and repair
$
298

  Mobile communication support
76

 
374

Intangible asset impairment
191

Other changes, net
26

Total increase
$
591

The intangible asset impairment is in Jet Aviation’s maintenance business and discussed in conjunction with the Aerospace business group’s operating results. No other changes were material.

REVIEW OF 2010 VS. 2011
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
32,466

 
$
32,677

 
$
211

 
0.6
 %
Operating costs and expenses
28,521

 
28,851

 
330

 
1.2
 %
Operating earnings
3,945

 
3,826

 
(119
)
 
(3.0
)%
Operating margin
12.2
%
 
11.7
%
 
 

 
 

Our revenues and operating costs were up slightly in 2011 compared with 2010. Revenues increased in the Aerospace group, primarily driven by initial green deliveries of the new G650 aircraft. This increase was partially offset by lower revenues in the Information Systems and Technology group’s mobile communication systems business. Operating costs also increased due to the impairment of an intangible asset in our Aerospace group. As a result, operating earnings and margins declined in 2011.
Product Revenues and Operating Costs
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
21,723

 
$
21,440

 
$
(283
)
 
(1.3
)%
Operating costs
17,359

 
17,230

 
(129
)
 
(0.7
)%
Product revenues were lower in 2011 compared with 2010 due to lower revenues on mobile communication products and on several ship construction programs, most significantly on the DDG-1000 and DDG-51 destroyers and commercial product-carrier programs. These decreases were partially offset by higher aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions revenues due to initial green deliveries of the G650 aircraft. Product operating costs were lower in 2011 compared with 2010 primarily due to volume. However, the decrease in volume was partially offset by an impairment of an intangible asset in the completions business in our Aerospace group.
Service Revenues and Operating Costs

Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
10,743

 
$
11,237

 
$
494

 
4.6
%
Operating costs
9,198

 
9,591

 
393

 
4.3
%
    

31


Service revenues increased in 2011 compared with 2010 as growth on IT support and modernization programs for the DoD and the intelligence community, coupled with the acquisition of Vangent, Inc., resulted in higher IT services revenues. Additionally, the growing global installed base of business-jet aircraft and increased flying hours across the installed base resulted in higher aircraft services revenues. Service operating costs increased in 2011 compared with 2010 primarily due to volume.
OTHER INFORMATION
Goodwill Impairment
In 2012, we recorded a $2 billion goodwill impairment in the Information Systems and Technology group discussed below in conjunction with the business group’s operating results and in the Application of Critical Accounting Policies.
G&A Expenses
As a percentage of revenues, G&A expenses were 6 percent in 2010, 6.2 percent in 2011 and 7.2 percent in 2012. The increase in 2012 is due, in part, to restructuring-related charges in our European military vehicles business discussed below in conjunction with the Combat Systems business group’s operating results. We expect G&A expenses in 2013 to be approximately 6.5 percent of revenues.
Interest, Net
Net interest expense was $157 in 2010, $141 in 2011 and $156 in 2012. The 2012 increase in interest expense is due to the $750 net increase in long-term debt beginning in July 2011. We expect full-year 2013 net interest expense to be approximately $90. The significant expected decrease from 2012 results from our debt refinancing completed in December 2012 that lowered the weighted-average interest rate on our outstanding debt from 3.9 percent to 2.2 percent. See Note J to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding our debt obligations.
Other, Net
In 2012, other expense included a $123 loss on the redemption of debt associated with the refinancing discussed above. In 2011, other income consisted primarily of a $38 gain from the sale of a business in our Combat Systems group.
Effective Tax Rate
Our effective tax rate was 30.7 percent in 2010, 31.4 percent in 2011 and 161.4 percent in 2012. The significant increase in 2012 was primarily due to the largely non-deductible goodwill impairment of $2 billion recorded in the Information Systems and Technology group and, to a lesser extent, the establishment of valuation allowances related to deferred tax assets in our international operations. For further discussion and a reconciliation of our effective tax rate from the statutory federal rate, see Note E to the Consolidated Financial Statements. We anticipate an effective tax rate of approximately 32 percent in 2013.
Discontinued Operations
In 2011, we recognized a $13 loss, net of taxes, in discontinued operations from the settlement of an environmental matter associated with a former operation of the company. We also increased our estimate of the continued legal costs associated with the A-12 litigation as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that extended the timeline associated with the litigation, resulting in a $13 loss, net of taxes. See Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of the A-12 litigation.


32


REVIEW OF BUSINESS GROUPS
Following is a discussion of the operating results and outlook for each of our business groups. For the Aerospace group, results are analyzed with respect to specific lines of products and services, consistent with how the group is managed. For the defense groups, the discussion is based on the types of products and services each group offers with a supplemental discussion of specific contracts and programs when significant to the group’s results. Information regarding our business groups also can be found in Note Q to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
AEROSPACE
Review of 2011 vs. 2012
Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
5,998

 
$
6,912

 
$
914

 
15.2
 %
Operating earnings
729

 
858

 
129

 
17.7
 %
Operating margin
12.2
%
 
12.4
%
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gulfstream aircraft deliveries (in units):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Green
107
 
121
 
14

 
13.1
 %
Outfitted
99
 
94
 
(5
)
 
(5.1
)%
The Aerospace group’s revenues increased in 2012 compared to 2011. The increase consisted of the following:

Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
917

Aircraft services
(30
)
Pre-owned aircraft
27

Total increase
$
914

Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions revenues include the manufacture and outfitting of Gulfstream business-jet aircraft as well as completions of aircraft produced by other OEMs. Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions revenues increased in 2012 primarily due to increased deliveries of the G650 aircraft.
The group’s operating earnings increased in 2012. The increase consisted of the following:

Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
333

Aircraft services
(198
)
Pre-owned aircraft
(1
)
G&A/other expenses
(5
)
Total increase
$
129

Earnings from the manufacture and outfitting of Gulfstream aircraft increased $136, or over 10 percent, in 2012 compared with 2011 primarily due to green deliveries of the G650 aircraft. Earnings from other OEM completions were up $197 in 2012 as operational performance improved. Operating earnings in 2011 were negatively impacted by $78 of losses on several completions projects and a $111 impairment of the completions business contract and program intangible asset as a result of these losses and lower revenues.

33


Aircraft services earnings decreased in 2012 primarily due to a $191 impairment charge on intangible assets in Jet Aviation’s maintenance business, which has been negatively impacted by an increasingly competitive marketplace, particularly in Europe. Most significantly, certain OEMs are performing maintenance work that historically was performed by third-party service providers, including Jet Aviation. As a result of these market trends, we reviewed the long-lived assets of Jet Aviation’s maintenance business in the fourth quarter of 2012 and eliminated the remaining value of the contract and program and related technology intangible assets. We are aligning our Jet Aviation maintenance business with anticipated future demand, and as a result sold three European-based maintenance facilities in December 2012. We believe that we have right-sized Jet Aviation’s maintenance business to remain profitable, albeit smaller, in the future.
Review of 2010 vs. 2011
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
5,299

 
$
5,998

 
$
699

 
13.2
 %
Operating earnings
860

 
729

 
(131
)
 
(15.2
)%
Operating margin
16.2
%
 
12.2
%
 
 

 
 

Gulfstream aircraft deliveries (in units):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Green
99
 
107

 
8

 
8.1
 %
Outfitted
89
 
99

 
10

 
11.2
 %
The Aerospace group’s revenues increased in 2011 primarily due to additional Gulfstream large-cabin green and outfitted deliveries, including initial green deliveries of the new G650 aircraft. Higher aircraft services revenues in 2011, reflecting the growing global installed base and increased flying hours of business-jet aircraft, were offset by lower completions revenues as a result of manufacturing delays and lower volume. The group’s operating earnings decreased in 2011 compared with 2010 due to the contract losses and intangible asset impairment in our completions business discussed above and from higher R&D and selling expenses.
2013 Outlook
We expect an increase of approximately 16 percent in the group’s revenues in 2013 compared with 2012, led by Gulfstream, and operating margins in the mid-15 percent range.
COMBAT SYSTEMS

Review of 2011 vs. 2012
Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
8,827

 
$
7,992

 
$
(835
)
 
(9.5
)%
Operating earnings
1,283

 
663

 
(620
)
 
(48.3
)%
Operating margins
14.5
%
 
8.3
%
 
 
 
 
The Combat Systems group’s revenues decreased in 2012 compared with 2011. The decrease consisted of the following:


34


U.S. military vehicles
$
12

Weapon systems and munitions
(212
)
European military vehicles
(635
)
Total decrease
$
(835
)
In 2012, revenues were up slightly in the group’s U.S. military vehicles business. Revenues increased due to the December 2011 acquisition of Force Protection, Inc., higher volume on several international light armored vehicle (LAV) programs and the start of the Technology Development phase of the Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. These increases were largely offset by lower volume on the domestic Stryker, Abrams and Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle programs.
Lower volume across several U.S. armament and munitions programs, including vehicle armor, MK47 grenade launchers and Hydra rockets, due to slowed defense spending, combined with the sale of the detection systems business in the second quarter of 2011, resulted in the decrease in revenues in the weapons systems and munitions business.
In the group’s European military vehicle business, revenues were down in 2012 due to lower volume on multiple wheeled vehicle contracts for various international customers that are nearing completion. In 2012, final deliveries occurred under several of these contracts, including Piranha vehicles for the Belgian Army, Duro vehicles for the Swiss government and Eagle vehicles for the German government.
The Combat Systems group’s operating earnings and margins decreased in 2012. In addition to lower volume, operating results in 2012 include the negative impact of three discrete charges in our European military vehicles business:

$292 for contract disputes accruals, primarily related to the termination of the contract to provide Pandur vehicles for Portugal ($169 of this amount was recorded as a reduction of revenues);
$98 of restructuring-related charges, primarily severance, for activities associated with eliminating excess capacity and aligning our European military vehicles business for anticipated lower demand; and
$67 of out-of-period adjustments recorded in the first quarter of 2012 ($48 of this amount was recorded as a reduction of revenues).

For further discussion of the status of the Portugal program and the restructuring costs, see Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The impact on the group’s operating margins from the charges was approximately 530 basis points.

Review of 2010 vs. 2011 
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
8,878

 
$
8,827

 
$
(51
)
 
(0.6
)%
Operating earnings
1,275

 
1,283

 
8

 
0.6
 %
Operating margins
14.4
%
 
14.5
%
 
 
 
 
The Combat Systems group’s revenues were down slightly in 2011 compared with 2010 due to reduced volume in the group’s U.S. military vehicles business. Volume was down due to less refurbishment and upgrade work for the Abrams tank, fewer survivability kits for the Stryker vehicle and a decline in activity on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program as the system design and development neared completion. Increased volume to provide LAVs for several international customers partially offset these decreases.

35


Partially offsetting the decrease in the group’s U.S. military vehicles business, revenues were higher in the group’s European military vehicles business due to increased volume on Duro and Eagle wheeled vehicles for a variety of European customers. The group’s operating earnings and margins were up slightly in 2011 due to higher profitability on several major programs in our U.S. military vehicle business.
2013 Outlook
We expect the Combat Systems group’s revenues in 2013 to be down approximately 6 percent from 2012 with operating margins in the mid-13 percent range. The expected decline in revenues is due to anticipated lower services revenues in our U.S. military vehicles business and lower overall revenues in our weapons systems business. Our 2013 outlook assumes the U.S. government operates under a CR in FY 2013 and there are no significant reductions to the proposed defense budget.
MARINE SYSTEMS

Review of 2011 vs. 2012 
Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
6,631

 
$
6,592

 
$
(39
)
 
(0.6
)%
Operating earnings
691

 
750

 
59

 
8.5
 %
Operating margins
10.4
%
 
11.4
%
 
 
 
 
Operating Results
The Marine Systems group’s revenues decreased in 2012 compared with 2011. The decrease consisted of the following:

Ship construction
$
(336
)
Ship engineering, repair and other services
297

Total decrease
$
(39
)
The group’s U.S. Navy ship-construction programs include Virginia-class submarines, DDG-1000 and DDG-51 destroyers, and T-AKE combat-logistics and Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) auxiliary support ships. Decreased revenues in 2012 of $580 on the Virginia-class and the remainder of the ships in the T-AKE programs were partially offset by an increase of $244 on the MLP and DDG destroyer programs. Revenues were lower on the Virginia-class program in 2012 due to timing as the group transitions from the Block II to the Block III contract. In 2012, the group delivered the final ship under the T-AKE program, resulting in a decrease in revenues. Revenues increased in 2012 on the MLP and DDG-51 programs as two ships are now under construction on both programs.
Revenues were higher on engineering and repair programs for the Navy in 2012. The increase in revenues was driven by recent acquisitions of two East Coast surface-ship repair operations and higher volume on the Ohio-class replacement engineering program.
Despite the decline in revenues, the Marine Systems group’s operating earnings increased in 2012, resulting in a 100 basis-point increase in operating margin compared with 2011. Increases in the T-AKE profit rate contributed $53 of operating earnings, approximately 70 basis points of margin expansion, as the program continued to experience favorable cost performance through construction of the final ship.


36


Review of 2010 vs. 2011 
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
6,677

 
$
6,631

 
$
(46
)
 
(0.7
)%
Operating earnings
674

 
691

 
17

 
2.5
 %
Operating margin
10.1
%
 
10.4
%
 
 

 
 

Revenues in the Marine Systems group decreased slightly in 2011 due to lower volume on the DDG programs, the completion of a five-ship commercial product-carrier construction program in 2010 and the wind down of the T-AKE program. These decreases were partially offset by higher volume on the MLP ship construction program, the Ohio-class replacement program and surface-ship repair work. The group’s operating earnings and margins increased in 2011 due to favorable cost performance on the mature T-AKE program.
2013 Outlook
We expect the Marine Systems group’s 2013 revenues to increase approximately 2 percent from 2012. With the completion of the T-AKE program, operating margins are expected to decline to the low- to mid-9 percent range in 2013. Our 2013 outlook assumes the U.S. government operates under a CR in FY 2013 and there are no significant reductions to the proposed defense budget.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY

Review of 2011 vs. 2012
Year Ended December 31
2011
 
2012
 
Variance
Revenues
$
11,221

 
$
10,017

 
$
(1,204
)
 
(10.7
)%
Operating earnings (loss)
1,200

 
(1,369
)
 
(2,569
)
 
(214.1
)%
Operating margins
10.7
%
 
(13.7
)%
 
 
 
 
Operating Results
The Information Systems and Technology group’s revenues decreased in 2012 compared with 2011. The decrease consisted of the following:
 
Mobile communication systems
$
(1,086
)
Information technology (IT) solutions and mission support services
(56
)
Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems
(62
)
Total decrease
$
(1,204
)
The decrease in revenues in the mobile communication systems business was driven by slowed defense spending, protracted U.S. customer acquisition cycles and a slower than expected transition to follow-on work on several contracts. This resulted in lower revenues in 2012 on key programs, including the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) and Common Hardware Systems (CHS), and for encryption and ruggedized hardware products. In addition, over 10 percent of the decline in the group’s revenues was due to lower volume on the U.K.-based Bowman communications system program, which has been successfully fielded and has now moved into maintenance and long-term support.
In the group’s IT solutions and services business, decreased volume in 2012 due to the completion of several large-scale IT infrastructure and support programs for the intelligence community and the DoD,

37


including the New Campus East, Mark Center and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center programs, was largely offset by revenues from the 2011 acquisition of Vangent, Inc.
Revenues were down in 2012 compared with 2011 in the group’s ISR business primarily due to lower optical products revenues as demand was impacted negatively by pressured defense budgets and the broader economic environment. Actions taken in 2012 to align the business with anticipated future demand are expected to stabilize performance in 2013.
Operating earnings and margins decreased significantly in 2012 compared with 2011. This decrease was driven by the negative impact of four discrete charges:

$2 billion goodwill impairment resulting from a decline in the estimated fair value of the group caused by topline pressure from slowed defense spending and the threat of sequestration, and margin compression due to mix shift impacting the projected cash flows of the group;
$110 of intangible asset impairments on several assets in our optical products business, most significantly the contract and program intangible asset, as a result of competitive losses and delays in the fourth quarter of 2012 indicative of lower overall demand caused by the economic downturn;
$58 write-down of substantially all of the remaining ruggedized hardware inventory, including $25 in the third quarter, based on anticipated remaining demand for products that ceased production in 2012; and
$26 for cost growth associated with the demonstration phase of the SV program (an additional $6 was recorded by the Combat Systems group’s European military vehicles business).

For further discussion of the impairment charges, see Note B to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Application of Critical Accounting Policies later in this section.

Review of 2010 vs. 2011
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
Variance
Revenues
$
11,612

 
$
11,221

 
$
(391
)
 
(3.4
)%
Operating earnings
1,219

 
1,200

 
(19
)
 
(1.6
)%
Operating margins
10.5
%
 
10.7
%
 
 
 
 
The Information Systems and Technology group’s revenues were down in 2011 compared with 2010. Revenues in the mobile communication systems business were impacted unfavorably by CRs and protracted U.S. customer acquisition cycles that slowed orders, resulting in lower revenues on ruggedized hardware products, including CHS, and other products with shorter-term delivery timeframes. Additionally, revenues on the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Project (MHP) were down in 2011 as the group transitioned from production to the training and support phase of the program. Lower revenues in the group’s ISR business resulted from the sale of a satellite facility in 2010 and lower optical products volume. Offsetting these decreases were increased revenues in the IT solutions and services business due to the 2011 acquisition of Vangent, Inc., and higher volume on the group’s large-scale IT infrastructure and support programs. Operating earnings decreased at a lower rate than revenues, resulting in a 20-basis-point increase in operating margins. Higher margins in our mobile communication systems business were in part due to $95 of overhead reduction initiatives, but were largely offset by growth in our lower-margin IT solutions and services business.

38


2013 Outlook
We expect 2013 revenues in the Information Systems and Technology group to be down approximately 5 percent from 2012 with operating margins in the low-8 percent range. Our 2013 outlook assumes the U.S. government operates under a CR in FY 2013 and there are no significant reductions to the proposed defense budget. Due to its shorter-cycle businesses, the Information Systems and Technology outlook is more sensitive than our other defense groups to any additional budget reductions that may occur.
CORPORATE
Corporate results consist primarily of compensation expense for stock options. Corporate operating costs totaled $83 in 2010, $77 in 2011 and $69 in 2012. We expect 2013 full-year Corporate operating costs of approximately $90, an increase from 2012 due to less income from the advanced funding of our primary pension plan.

BACKLOG AND ESTIMATED POTENTIAL CONTRACT VALUE
Our total backlog, including funded and unfunded portions, was $51.3 billion at the end of 2012 compared with $57.4 billion at year-end 2011.
Our backlog does not include work awarded on unfunded indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts or unexercised options associated with existing firm contracts, which we refer to collectively as estimated potential contract value. IDIQ contracts provide customers with flexibility when they have not defined the exact timing and quantity of deliveries or services that will be required at the time the contract is executed. Contract options represent agreements to perform additional work under existing contracts at the election of the customer. The actual amount of funding received in the future may be higher or lower than our estimate of potential contract value. On December 31, 2012, estimated potential contract value associated with IDIQ contracts and contract options was approximately $26.9 billion, down 4 percent from $28 billion at the end of 2011. We expect to realize this value over the next several years.

AEROSPACE
Aerospace funded backlog represents aircraft orders for which we have definitive purchase contracts and deposits from customers. Unfunded backlog consists of agreements to provide future aircraft maintenance and support services.
The Aerospace group finished 2012 with a total backlog of $15.7 billion, down from $17.9 billion at year-end 2011. Order activity included demand for products across our portfolio, although orders were lower than in 2011 as we have experienced an elongated order cycle. Weaker order activity in the first half of 2012 improved somewhat in the second half of the year, including several North American Fortune 500 multi-aircraft orders. Customer defaults were down significantly from 2011 to the lowest level in five years.

39


We balance aircraft production rates with customer demand to maximize profitability and stabilize production over time. This has enabled us to maintain an appropriate window between customer order and delivery for our G450 and G550 large-cabin aircraft, but we have accumulated approximately five years of backlog for the G650. Backlog will likely decrease over the next several years as we deliver on our G650 backlog and the time period between customer order and delivery of that aircraft normalizes.
The group’s customer base is diverse across customer types and geographic regions. Approximately 60 percent of the group’s year-end backlog was composed of private companies and individual buyers. While the installed base of aircraft is predominately in North America, international customers represent nearly 60 percent of the group’s backlog. Over 55 percent of the group’s orders in 2012 were from North American customers, as Fortune 500 companies took steps in 2012 to re-capitalize their fleets.

DEFENSE GROUPS
The total backlog for our defense groups represents the estimated remaining value of work to be performed under firm contracts. The funded portion of this backlog includes amounts that have been authorized and appropriated by the Congress and funded by the customer, as well as commitments by international customers that are similarly approved and funded by their governments. While there is no guarantee that future budgets and appropriations will provide funding for a given program, we have included in total backlog only firm contracts at the amounts we believe are likely to receive funding.
Total backlog in our defense groups was $35.6 billion on December 31, 2012, down 10 percent from $39.5 billion at the end of 2011. The decrease occurred in our Combat Systems and Marine Systems groups as work continued on large, multi-year contracts awarded in prior periods.
COMBAT SYSTEMS
Combat Systems’ total backlog was $8.7 billion at the end of 2012, down from $11.4 billion at year-end 2011. The group’s backlog primarily consists of long-term production contracts.
The group’s backlog on December 31, 2012, included $1.6 billion for M1 Abrams main battle tank modernization and upgrade programs for the Army and U.S. allies around the world. In 2012, the group received awards totaling $1 billion for all Abrams-related programs, including a $395 multi-year contract to conduct development efforts for additional upgrade opportunities designed to increase the efficiency and capability of the tank. The group was also awarded $170 to continue work on a multi-year contract awarded in 2008 to upgrade M1A1 tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) configuration. Abrams backlog also included $225 for production of M1A1 tank kits for the Egyptian Land Forces under an Egyptian tank co-production program, $315 for Merkava Armored Personnel Carrier hulls and material

40


kits for the Israeli Ministry of Defense and $160 for the production of an M1A2 variant for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The Army’s Stryker wheeled combat vehicle program represented $1.2 billion of the group’s backlog at year end with vehicles scheduled for delivery through 2014. The group received over $1.1 billion of Stryker orders in 2012, including awards for production of 62 new vehicles, the conversion of previously delivered vehicles to the double-V-hull configuration, contractor logistics support and engineering services.
The group’s backlog at year end also included $195 for the Technology Development phase of the Army’s GCV program, $140 for the Buffalo mine clearance vehicle and $80 under the MRAP program, largely for upgrade kits for previously-delivered vehicles.
The Combat Systems group has several significant international military vehicle production contracts in backlog. The backlog at the end of the year included:
$870 for the upgrade and modernization of LAV III combat vehicles for the Canadian Army, including a $135 contract modification awarded in 2012 to upgrade an additional 66 vehicles bringing the total to approximately 600 vehicles;
$800 for LAVs under several foreign military sales (FMS) contracts;
$115 for 151 Foxhound armored vehicles for the U.K. Ministry of Defence;
$150 for Pizarro Advanced Infantry Fighting Vehicles scheduled for delivery to the Spanish Army through 2016; and
$110 for the design, integration and production of seven prototypes under the U.K.’s SV program, in addition to the integration work being performed by the Information Systems and Technology group.
The Combat Systems group’s backlog at year end also included $2.4 billion in weapons systems and munitions programs. In 2012, the group received awards totaling $390 for axles in the military and commercial markets and $265 for the production of Hydra-70 rockets. The group also received awards worth $180 from the Canadian government to supply various calibers of ammunition.
Combat Systems’ estimated potential contract value of $2.8 billion decreased approximately 20 percent since year-end 2011 due to the funding of IDIQ contracts and options that were then transferred to backlog, such as for the Hydra-70 rocket program.

MARINE SYSTEMS 
The Marine Systems group’s total backlog consists of long-term submarine and ship construction programs, as well as numerous engineering and repair contracts. The group periodically receives large contract awards that provide backlog for several years. As the group performs on the contracts, backlog decreases. Consistent

41


with this historical pattern, the backlog has decreased to $17.1 billion at year-end 2012, compared to $18.5 billion at the end of 2011.
The Virginia-class submarine program was the company’s largest program in 2012 and is the largest contract in the group’s and company’s backlog. The group’s backlog at year end included $9 billion for nine Virginia-class submarines scheduled for delivery through 2018. As the prime contractor on the Virginia-class program, we report the entire backlog and revenues associated with the program but share the construction activity and the earnings with our teaming partner. We have submitted a proposal for the next block of submarines under the program expected to be awarded near the end of 2013. In 2012, we received $385 of awards for long-lead materials for the first three boats under the next block of submarines.
Navy destroyer programs represented $2.4 billion of the group’s backlog at year-end 2012. Under the Navy’s restart of the DDG-51 program, we have construction contracts for two destroyers scheduled for deliveries in 2016 and 2017. We have submitted a bid for a multi-ship construction contract that is expected to be awarded in the first half of 2013. Backlog at year end also includes three ships under the DDG-1000 program scheduled for deliveries in 2015, 2016 and 2018.
The Marine Systems group’s backlog at year end included $605 for the MLP program. In 2012, the group was awarded a construction contract for the third ship in the program. Delivery of one ship per year is scheduled beginning in 2013, and the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan includes procurement of a fourth ship in 2014. The year-end backlog also included $335 for two liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered containerships. Construction of these ships is scheduled to begin in 2014 with deliveries in 2015 and 2016.
In addition, the Marine Systems group’s backlog at year end included approximately $4.7 billion for engineering, repair, overhaul and other services. This includes $1.9 billion for design and development efforts on the Ohio-class replacement engineering program, including $1.8 billion awarded in the fourth quarter of 2012. Year-end backlog for maintenance and repair services totaled $1.4 billion.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Information Systems and Technology group’s total backlog was $9.8 billion at the end of 2012, up from $9.6 billion at year-end 2011. The group’s backlog does not include approximately $21 billion of estimated potential contract value associated with its anticipated share of IDIQ contracts and unexercised options. In 2012, funding under IDIQ contracts and options contributed over $5.1 billion to the group’s backlog, over half of the group’s orders, resulting in a slight decrease in the estimated potential contract value from year-end 2011. When combined, the group’s backlog and estimated potential contract value totaled $30.8 billion.
Unlike our other defense businesses, the Information Systems and Technology group’s backlog consists of thousands of contracts and must be reconstituted each year with new program and task order awards. Nonetheless, there are several significant contracts that provide a solid foundation for the business.

42


The group’s backlog at year-end 2012 included approximately $645 for the Army’s WIN-T program. The backlog does not include over $300 of estimated potential contract value for the WIN-T program awarded as an IDIQ contract.
The Information Systems and Technology group’s backlog at year end also included $370 for the Handheld, Manpack and Small Form-Fit (HMS) program. In 2012, the group received $315 in orders from the Army for production of nearly 17,000 Rifleman and Manpack radios and accessory kits.
The group’s backlog at the end of 2012 included approximately $520 for a number of support and modernization programs for the intelligence community and the DoD and Department of Homeland Security, including the St. Elizabeths campus, New Campus East and NETCENTS infrastructure programs.
Programs for the U.K. Ministry of Defence comprised $495 of the group’s backlog at the end of 2012. Work continued in 2012 on the demonstration phase of the SV program. In this phase, the group manages the design, integration and production of seven prototype vehicles. Work and the backlog under the contract are shared with the Combat Systems group. The group also has successfully fielded the Bowman communications system and is now performing maintenance and long-term support and enhancement activities for the program.
In addition to these programs, the group received a number of significant contract awards in 2012, including the following:
$155 from Austal USA for combat and seaframe control systems for two Littoral Combat Ships, bringing the value in backlog to $295. Options to provide these systems for six additional ships will be recognized as orders as they are exercised.
$150 from the U.S. Department of State to provide supply chain management services. The program has a maximum potential value of $1.2 billion over five years.
$125 for production and support of U.S. and U.K. Trident II submarine weapons systems.
$95 from the Army for ruggedized computing equipment under the Common Hardware Systems-4 (CHS-4) program, bringing the value in backlog to $155. The backlog does not include $3.5 billion of estimated potential contract value awarded under an IDIQ contract.
$80 for support of the Trident missile D5 life-extension program, which extends the life of existing missiles by replacing and upgrading obsolete components.
$65 for the Warfighter Field Operations Customer Support (FOCUS) program to provide support for the Army’s live, virtual and constructive training operations, bringing the value in backlog to $145.
Information Systems and Technology was awarded several significant IDIQ contracts during 2012, including the following:
An award from the Federal Aviation Administration to deliver radios that allow air traffic control personnel to communicate with aircraft. The program has a maximum potential value of $365 over 10 years.
An award from the U.S. Department of Energy to provide cybersecurity and cloud-computing support services. The program has a maximum potential value of $140 over four years.
An award from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to combine the Coordination of Benefits and the Medicare Secondary Payer systems. The program has a maximum potential value of $100 over five years.


43


FINANCIAL CONDITION, LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
We place a strong emphasis on cash flow generation. This focus has afforded us the financial flexibility to deploy our cash resources while preserving a strong balance sheet to position us for future opportunities. The $8.9 billion of cash generated by operating activities over the past three years was deployed to fund acquisitions and capital expenditures, repurchase our common stock, pay dividends and repay maturing debt. Our net debt was $613 at year-end 2012, down by $420 from the end of 2011.
Our cash balances are invested primarily in time deposits from highly rated banks and commercial paper rated A1/P1 or higher. On December 31, 2012, $1 billion of our cash was held by international operations and therefore, not immediately available to fund domestic operations unless repatriated. While we do not intend to do so, should this cash be repatriated, it would be subject to U.S. federal income tax but would generate partially offsetting foreign tax credits.
Year Ended December 31
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
2,986

 
$
3,238

 
$
2,687

Net cash used by investing activities
(408
)
 
(1,974
)
 
(656
)
Net cash used by financing activities
(2,226
)
 
(1,201
)
 
(1,382
)
Net cash used by discontinued operations
(2
)
 
(27
)
 
(2
)
Net increase in cash and equivalents
350

 
36

 
647

Cash and equivalents at beginning of year
2,263

 
2,613

 
2,649

Cash and equivalents at end of year
2,613

 
2,649

 
3,296

Marketable securities
212

 
248

 

Short- and long-term debt
(3,203
)
 
(3,930
)
 
(3,909
)
Net debt (a)
$
(378
)
 
$
(1,033
)
 
$
(613
)
Debt-to-equity (b)
24.1
%
 
29.7
%
 
34.3
%
Debt-to-capital (c)
19.4
%
 
22.9
%
 
25.6
%
(a)
Net debt is calculated as total debt less cash and equivalents and marketable securities.
(b)
Debt-to-equity ratio is calculated as total debt divided by total equity.
(c)
Debt-to-capital ratio is calculated as total debt divided by the sum of total debt plus total equity.
We expect to continue to generate funds in excess of our short- and long-term liquidity needs. We believe we have adequate funds on hand and sufficient borrowing capacity to execute our financial and operating strategy. The following is a discussion of our major operating, investing and financing activities for each of the past three years, as classified on the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows.
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
We generated cash from operating activities of $3 billion in 2010, $3.2 billion in 2011 and $2.7 billion in 2012. In all three years, the primary driver of cash flows was net earnings (loss) after removing the impact of non-cash charges. Operating cash flow is also impacted by contributions to our pension plans, which have grown from $300 in 2010 to $530 in 2012, with contributions of $600 expected in 2013.
Termination of A-12 Program. As discussed further in Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements, litigation on the A-12 program termination has been ongoing since 1991. If, contrary to our expectations, the default termination ultimately is sustained and the government prevails on its recovery theories, we, along with The Boeing Company, could collectively be required to repay the U.S. government as much as $1.4 billion for progress payments received for the A-12 contract, plus interest, which was approximately $1.6 billion on December 31, 2012. If this were the outcome, we would owe half of the total, or approximately $1.5 billion pretax. Our after-tax cash obligation would be approximately $740. We believe we have sufficient resources, including access to capital markets, to pay such an obligation if required.

44


INVESTING ACTIVITIES
We used $408 in 2010, $2 billion in 2011 and $656 in 2012 for investing activities. The primary uses of cash for investing activities were acquisitions and capital expenditures.
Business Acquisitions. We completed 16 acquisitions over the last three years totaling $2.3 billion. We used cash on hand to fund these acquisitions. See Note B to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of acquisition activity.
Capital Expenditures. Capital expenditures were $370 in 2010, $458 in 2011 and $450 in 2012. The increase in 2011 and 2012 compared with 2010 is largely due to Gulfstream’s Savannah, Georgia, facilities expansion project announced in 2010. We expect capital expenditures of approximately $640 in 2013, or 2 percent of anticipated revenues, as work on Gulfstream’s facilities project continues. On December 31, 2012, the project was approximately 35 percent complete.
Marketable Securities. To bolster liquidity in an uncertain business environment, we received cash of $219 from the net sales and maturity of marketable securities in 2012, including $211 from the sale of held-to-maturity securities. We held no marketable securities on December 31, 2012.
Other, Net. Investing activities also included proceeds from the sale of a satellite facility in our Information Systems and Technology group in 2010 and the detection systems business in our Combat Systems group in 2011.
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
We used $2.2 billion in 2010, $1.2 billion in 2011 and $1.4 billion in 2012 for financing activities including issuances and repayments of debt, payment of dividends and repurchases of common stock.
Debt Proceeds, Net. In August 2010, we repaid $700 of maturing fixed-rate notes. In 2011, we issued $1.5 billion of fixed-rate notes and used the proceeds to repay $750 of maturing fixed-rate notes. In 2012, we issued $2.4 billion of fixed-rate notes and used the proceeds to redeem, prior to maturity, an equal amount of fixed-rate notes with higher interest rates. We have no material repayments of long-term debt expected until 2015. See Note J to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding our debt obligations, including scheduled debt maturities.
We ended 2012 with no commercial paper outstanding. We have $2 billion in bank credit facilities that remain available. These facilities provide backup liquidity to our commercial paper program. We also have an effective shelf registration on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Dividends. On March 7, 2012, our board of directors declared an increased quarterly dividend of $0.51 per share – the 15th consecutive annual increase. The board had previously increased the quarterly dividend to $0.47 per share in March 2011 and $0.42 per share in March 2010. In advance of possible tax increases in 2013, we accelerated our first quarter 2013 dividend payment to December 2012.
Share Repurchases. Our board of directors typically authorizes repurchases in 10 million-share increments. We repurchased 18.9 million shares on the open market in 2010, 20 million shares in 2011 and 9.1 million shares in 2012. As a result, we reduced our shares outstanding by over 8 percent since 2009. On December 31, 2012, approximately 10.9 million shares remained authorized by our board of directors for repurchase, approximately 3 percent of our total shares outstanding.

45



NON-GAAP MANAGEMENT METRICS

We emphasize the efficient conversion of net earnings into cash and the deployment of that cash to maximize shareholder returns. As described below, we use free cash flow and return on invested capital (ROIC) to measure our performance in these areas. While we believe that these metrics provide useful information, they are not operating measures under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and there are limitations associated with their use. Our calculation of these metrics may not be completely comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies due to potential differences in the method of calculation. As a result, the use of these metrics should not be considered in isolation from, or as a substitute for, other GAAP measures.
Free Cash Flow. We define free cash flow from operations as net cash provided by operating activities less capital expenditures. We believe free cash flow from operations is a useful measure for investors, because it portrays our ability to generate cash from our operations for purposes such as repaying maturing debt, funding business acquisitions, repurchasing our common stock and paying dividends. We use free cash flow from operations to assess the quality of our earnings and as a performance measure in evaluating management. The following table reconciles the free cash flow from operations with net cash provided by operating activities, as classified on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows:
Year Ended December 31
2008
 
2009
 
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
3,124

 
$
2,855

 
$
2,986

 
$
3,238

 
$
2,687

Capital expenditures
(490
)
 
(385
)
 
(370
)
 
(458
)
 
(450
)
Free cash flow from operations
$
2,634

 
$
2,470

 
$
2,616

 
$
2,780

 
$
2,237

Cash flow as a percentage of earnings (loss) from continuing operations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Net cash provided by operating activities
126
%
 
119
%
 
114
%
 
127
%
 
NM*

   Free cash flow from operations
106
%
 
103
%
 
100
%
 
109
%
 
NM*

* Not meaningful (NM) due to net loss in 2012.
Return on Invested Capital. We believe ROIC is a useful measure for investors because it reflects our ability to generate returns from the capital we have deployed in our operations. We use ROIC to evaluate investment decisions and as a performance measure in evaluating management. We define ROIC as net operating profit after taxes divided by the sum of the average debt and shareholders’ equity for the year. Net operating profit after taxes is defined as earnings (loss) from continuing operations plus after-tax interest and amortization expense. ROIC is calculated as follows:
 
Year Ended December 31
2008
 
2009
 
2010
 
2011
 
2012
Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
$
2,478

 
$
2,407

 
$
2,628

 
$
2,552

 
$
(332
)
After-tax interest expense
91

 
117

 
116

 
106

 
109

After-tax amortization expense
100

 
149

 
155

 
163

 
152

Net operating profit (loss) after taxes
$
2,669

 
$
2,673

 
$
2,899

 
$
2,821

 
$
(71
)
Average debt and equity
$
14,390

 
$
15,003

 
$
16,587

 
$
17,123

 
$
17,203

Return on invested capital
18.5
%
 
17.8
%
 
17.5
%
 
16.5
%
 
(0.4
)%

46


ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
On December 31, 2012, other than operating leases, we had no material off-balance sheet arrangements.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS
The following tables present information about our contractual obligations and commercial commitments on December 31, 2012:
 
 
 
 
Payments Due by Period
Contractual Obligations
Total Amount Committed
 
Less Than 1 Year
 
1-3 Years
 
4-5 Years
 
More Than 5 Years
Long-term debt (a)
$
4,923

 
$
89

 
$
673

 
$
1,546

 
$
2,615

Capital lease obligations
34

 
3

 
4

 
4

 
23

Operating leases
1,099

 
239

 
341

 
188

 
331

Purchase obligations (b)
19,841

 
11,440

 
5,385

 
1,659

 
1,357

Other long-term liabilities (c)
18,331

 
3,259

 
2,035

 
1,790

 
11,247

 
$
44,228

 
$
15,030

 
$
8,438

 
$
5,187

 
$
15,573

(a)Includes scheduled interest payments. See Note J to the Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion of long-term debt.
(b)Includes amounts committed under legally enforceable agreements for goods and services with defined terms as to quantity, price and timing of delivery. This amount includes $13.5 billion of purchase orders for products and services to be delivered under firm government contracts under which we have full recourse under normal contract termination clauses.
(c)Represents other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet, including the current portion of these liabilities. The projected timing of cash flows associated with these obligations is based on management’s estimates, which are based largely on historical experience. This amount also includes all liabilities under our defined-benefit retirement plans. See Note P for information regarding these liabilities and the plan assets available to satisfy them.
 
 
 
Amount of Commitment Expiration by Period
Commercial Commitments
Total Amount Committed
 
Less Than 1 Year
 
1-3 Years
 
4-5 Years
 
More Than 5 Years
Letters of credit and guarantees*
$
1,895

 
$
1,193

 
$
409

 
$
6

 
$
287

* See Note N to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

APPLICATION OF CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is based on our Consolidated Financial Statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires that we make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the period. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including most pervasively those related to various assumptions and projections for our long-term contracts and programs. Other significant estimates include those related to goodwill and other intangible assets, income taxes, pensions and other post-retirement benefits, workers’ compensation, warranty obligations, and litigation and other contingencies. We employ judgment in making our estimates but they are based on historical experience and currently available information and various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. The results of these estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily available from other sources. Actual results could differ from these estimates. We believe that our judgment is applied consistently and produces financial information that fairly depicts the results of operations for all periods presented.

47


We believe the following policies are critical and require the use of significant judgment in their application:
Revenue Recognition. We account for revenues and earnings using the percentage-of-completion method. Under this method, contract revenue and profit are recognized as work progresses, either as products are produced or as services are rendered. We determine progress using either input measures (e.g., costs incurred) or output measures (e.g., contract milestones or units delivered), as appropriate to the circumstances. An input measure is used in most cases unless an output measure is identified that is reliably determinable and representative of progress  toward  completion.  We estimate the profit on a contract as the difference between the total estimated revenue and the total estimated costs of a contract and recognize that profit over the life of the contract. If at any time the estimate of contract profitability reveals an anticipated loss on the contract, we recognize the loss in the quarter it is identified.
We generally measure progress toward completion on contracts in our defense businesses based on the proportion of costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs at completion (input measure). For our contracts for the manufacture of business-jet aircraft, we record revenue at two contractual milestones: when green aircraft are delivered to, and accepted by, the customer and when the customer accepts final delivery of the fully outfitted aircraft (output measure). We do not recognize revenue at green delivery unless (1) a contract has been executed with the customer and (2) the customer can be expected to satisfy its obligations under the contract, as evidenced by the receipt of significant deposits from the customer and other factors.
Accounting for long-term contracts and programs involves the use of various techniques to estimate total contract revenues and costs. Contract estimates are based on various assumptions that utilize the professional knowledge and experience of our engineers, program and operations managers and finance and accounting personnel to project the outcome of future events that often span several years. These assumptions include labor productivity and availability; the complexity of the work to be performed; the cost and availability of materials; the performance of subcontractors; and the availability and timing of funding from the customer. We include in our contract estimates additional revenues for submitted contract modifications or claims against the customer when the amount can be estimated reliably and its realization is probable. In evaluating these criteria, we consider the contractual/legal basis for the claim, the cause of any additional costs incurred, the reasonableness of those costs and the objective evidence available to support the claim. We include award or incentive fees in the estimated contract value when there is a basis to reasonably estimate the amount of the fee. Estimates of award or incentive fees are based on historical award experience and anticipated performance. These estimates are based on our best judgment at the time. As a significant change in one or more of these estimates could affect the profitability of our contracts, we review our performance monthly and update our contract estimates at least annually and often quarterly, as well as when required by specific events or circumstances.
We recognize changes in the estimated profit on contracts under the reallocation method. Under this method, the impact of revisions in estimates is recognized prospectively over the remaining contract term. We use this method because we believe the majority of factors that typically result in changes in estimates on our long-term contracts affect the period in which the change is identified and future periods. These changes generally reflect our current expectations as to future performance and, therefore, the reallocation method is the method that best matches our profits to the periods in which they are earned. Most government contractors recognize the impact of a change in estimated profit immediately under the cumulative catch-up method. The impact on operating earnings in the period the change is identified is generally lower under the reallocation method as compared to the cumulative catch-up method. The net increase in our operating earnings (and on a per-share basis) from the quarterly impact of revisions in contract estimates totaled $350

48


($0.60) in 2010, $356 ($0.63) in 2011 and $180 ($0.33) in 2012. Other than revisions discussed in the Marine Systems and Information Systems and Technology business groups’ results of operations, no revisions on any one contract were material in 2012.
Goodwill and Intangible Assets. Since 1995, we have acquired more than 65 businesses at a total cost of approximately $23 billion, including seven in 2012. We have recognized goodwill and intangible assets as a result of these acquisitions.
Goodwill represents the purchase price paid in excess of the fair value of net tangible and intangible assets acquired. Goodwill is not amortized but is subject to an impairment test on an annual basis and when circumstances indicate that an impairment is more likely than not. Such circumstances include a significant adverse change in the business climate for one of our reporting units or a decision to dispose of a reporting unit or a significant portion of a reporting unit. The test for goodwill impairment is a two-step process that requires a significant level of estimation and use of judgment by management, particularly the estimate of the fair value of our reporting units. We estimate the fair value of our reporting units primarily based on the discounted projected cash flows of the underlying operations. This requires numerous assumptions, including the timing of work embedded in our backlog, our performance and profitability under our contracts, our success in securing future business, the appropriate risk-adjusted interest rate used to discount the projected cash flows, and terminal value growth and earnings rates applied to the final year of projected cash flows. Due to the variables inherent in our estimate of fair value, differences in assumptions may have a material effect on the result of our impairment analysis. To assess the reasonableness of our discounted projected cash flows, we compare the sum of our reporting units’ fair value to our market capitalization and calculate an implied control premium (the excess of the sum of the reporting units’ fair values over the market capitalization). We evaluate the reasonableness of this control premium by comparing it to control premiums for recent comparable market transactions. We also review market multiples of earnings from comparable publicly-traded companies with similar operating characteristics to ensure the reasonableness of our discounted projected cash flows.
We conducted and completed the required goodwill impairment test as of December 31, 2012. Step one of the goodwill impairment test compares the fair value of our reporting units to their carrying values. As it relates to the test, our reporting units are consistent with our business groups. Slowed defense spending, the threat of sequestration and margin compression due to mix shift have impacted operating results and tempered the projected cash flows of the Information Systems and Technology reporting unit, negatively impacting our estimate of its fair value. Step one of the impairment test concluded that the book value of our Information Systems and Technology reporting unit exceeded its estimated fair value. For our remaining three reporting units, the estimated fair values were at least double their respective book values. 
For the Information Systems and Technology reporting unit, we performed the second step of the goodwill impairment test to measure the amount of the impairment loss, if any. The second step of the test requires the allocation of the reporting unit’s fair value to its assets and liabilities, including any unrecognized intangible assets, in a hypothetical analysis that calculates the implied fair value of goodwill as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. If the implied fair value of goodwill is less than the carrying value, the difference is recorded as an impairment loss. Based on the results of the step two analysis, we recorded a $2 billion goodwill impairment in 2012.    
We review intangible assets subject to amortization for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. Impairment losses, where identified, are determined as the excess of the carrying value over the estimated fair value of the long-lived asset. We assess the recoverability of the carrying value of assets held for use based on a review of projected undiscounted cash flows. Prior to conducting step one of our 2012 goodwill impairment test,

49


we reviewed certain of our long-lived assets for recoverability and recorded intangible asset impairment losses of $191 and $110 in our Aerospace and Information Systems and Technology groups, respectively, as discussed in the business groups’ results of operations.
Commitments and Contingencies. We are subject to litigation and other legal proceedings arising either from the ordinary course of our business or under provisions relating to the protection of the environment. Estimating liabilities and costs associated with these matters requires the use of judgment. We record a charge against earnings when a liability associated with claims or pending or threatened litigation is probable and when our exposure is reasonably estimable. The ultimate resolution of our exposure related to these matters may change as further facts and circumstances become known.
Deferred Contract Costs. Certain costs incurred in the performance of our government contracts are recorded under GAAP but are not allocable currently to contracts. Such costs include a portion of our estimated workers’ compensation obligations, other insurance-related assessments, pension and other post-retirement benefits, and environmental expenses. These costs will become allocable to contracts generally after they are paid. We have elected to defer (or inventory) these costs in contracts in process until they can be allocated to contracts. We expect to recover these costs through ongoing business, including existing backlog and probable follow-on contracts. We regularly assess the probability of recovery of these costs under our current and probable follow-on contracts. This assessment requires that we make assumptions about future contract costs, the extent of cost recovery under our contracts and the amount of future contract activity. These estimates are based on our best judgment. If the backlog in the future does not support the continued deferral of these costs, the profitability of our remaining contracts could be adversely affected.
Retirement Plans. Our defined-benefit pension and other post-retirement benefit costs and obligations depend on a series of assumptions and estimates. The key assumptions relate to the interest rates used to discount estimated future liabilities and projected long-term rates of return on plan assets. We determine the discount rate used each year based on the rate of return currently available on a portfolio of high-quality fixed-income investments with a maturity that is consistent with the projected benefit payout period. We determine the long-term rate of return on assets based on consideration of historical and forward-looking returns and the current and expected asset allocation strategy. These estimates are based on our best judgment, including consideration of current and future market conditions. In the event a change in any of the assumptions is warranted, pension and post-retirement benefit cost could increase or decrease. For the impact of hypothetical changes in the discount rate and expected long-term rate of return on plan assets for our pension and post-retirement benefit plans, see Note P to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
As discussed under Deferred Contract Costs, our contractual arrangements with the U.S. government provide for the recovery of benefit costs for our government retirement plans. We have elected to defer recognition of the benefit costs that cannot currently be allocated to contracts to provide a better matching of revenues and expenses. Accordingly, the impact on the retirement benefit cost for these plans that results from annual changes in assumptions does not impact our earnings either positively or negatively.


50


ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
We are exposed to market risk, primarily from foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates, commodity prices and investments. See Note M to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Part II, Item 8, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of these risks. The following discussion quantifies the market risk exposure arising from hypothetical changes in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates.
Foreign Currency Risk. We had notional forward foreign exchange contracts outstanding of $4 billion on December 31, 2011, and $2.5 billion on December 31, 2012. A 10 percent unfavorable exchange rate movement in our portfolio of foreign currency forward contracts would have resulted in the following incremental pretax losses:

2011
 
2012
Recognized
$
(57
)
 
$
(61
)
Unrecognized
(176
)
 
(71
)
This exchange-rate sensitivity relates primarily to changes in the U.S. dollar/Canadian dollar, euro/Canadian dollar and Swiss franc/euro exchange rates. We believe these hypothetical recognized and unrecognized gains and losses would be offset by corresponding losses and gains in the remeasurement of the underlying transactions being hedged. We believe these forward contracts and the offsetting underlying commitments, when taken together, do not create material market risk.
Interest Rate Risk. Our financial instruments subject to interest rate risk include fixed-rate long-term debt obligations and variable-rate commercial paper. On December 31, 2012, we had $3.9 billion par value of fixed-rate debt and no commercial paper outstanding. Our fixed-rate debt obligations are not putable, and we do not trade these securities in the market. A 10 percent unfavorable interest rate movement would not have a material impact on the fair value of our debt obligations.
Our investment policy allows for purchases of fixed-income securities with an investment-grade rating and a maximum maturity of up to five years. On December 31, 2012, we held $3.3 billion in cash and equivalents, but held no marketable securities.

51


ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS (LOSS)

 
Year Ended December 31
(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts)
2010
2011
 
2012
 
Revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Products
$
21,723

$
21,440

 
$
19,784

 
Services
10,743

11,237

 
11,729

 
 
32,466

32,677

 
31,513

 
Operating costs and expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
Products
17,359

17,230

 
16,228

 
Services
9,198

9,591

 
10,182

 
Goodwill impairment


 
1,994

 
General and administrative (G&A)
1,964

2,030

 
2,276

 
 
28,521

28,851

 
30,680

 
Operating earnings
3,945

3,826

 
833

 
Interest, net
(157
)
(141
)
 
(156
)
 
Other, net
2

33

 
(136
)
 
Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes
3,790

3,718

 
541

 
Provision for income taxes, net
1,162

1,166

 
873

 
Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
2,628

2,552

 
(332
)
 
Discontinued operations, net of tax
(4
)
(26
)
 

 
Net earnings (loss)
$
2,624

$
2,526

 
$
(332
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Earnings (loss) per share
 
 
 
 
 
Basic:
 
 
 
 
 
Continuing operations
$
6.89

$
7.01

 
$
(0.94
)
 
Discontinued operations
(0.01
)
(0.07
)
 

 
Net earnings (loss)
$
6.88

$
6.94

 
$
(0.94
)
 
Diluted:
 
 
 
 
 
Continuing operations
$
6.82

$
6.94

 
$
(0.94
)
 
Discontinued operations
(0.01
)
(0.07
)
 

 
Net earnings (loss)
$
6.81

$
6.87

 
$
(0.94
)
 
The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements.



52


CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

 
Year Ended December 31
(Dollars in millions)
2010
2011
 
2012
 
Net earnings (loss)
$
2,624