10-K 1 gd-2017123110k.htm 10-K Document



gddocimage2017.gif
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, 2017
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
 
IRS 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. ___
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ü Accelerated filer __ Non-accelerated filer __ Smaller reporting company __ Emerging growth company __
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. __
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes No ü
The aggregate market value of the voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $52,357,779,347 as of July 2, 2017 (based on the closing price of the shares on the New York Stock Exchange).
296,933,621 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $1 par value per share, were outstanding on January 28, 2018.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:
Part III incorporates by reference information from certain portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year.


1



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.
Item 16.
 

2



PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS
(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts or unless otherwise noted)

BUSINESS OVERVIEW
General Dynamics is a global aerospace and defense company that offers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation; combat vehicles, weapons systems and munitions; information technology (IT) services and C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) solutions; and shipbuilding and ship repair.
General Dynamics was incorporated in Delaware in 1952. The company grew organically and through acquisitions until the early 1990s when we sold nearly our entire portfolio except for our military-vehicle and submarine businesses. Starting in the mid-1990s, we began expanding again by acquiring Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, combat-vehicle-related businesses, IT product and service companies and additional shipyards, forming the foundation of our company today.
We continue to expand our business through organic growth and acquisitions. We focus on delivering superior products and services to our customers, and creating value for our shareholders through a relentless focus on operational excellence and continuous improvement.
Our company is organized into four business groups: Aerospace, Combat Systems, Information Systems and Technology, and Marine Systems. Each group is comprised of two or more business units. Each unit has responsibility for its strategy and operational performance, providing the flexibility needed to stay close to customers, perform on programs and remain agile. Our corporate headquarters is responsible for setting the strategic direction and governance of the company, the allocation of capital and promoting a culture of ethics and integrity that defines how we operate. Our management team delivers on our commitments to shareholders through disciplined execution of our robust backlog, efficient cash-flow conversion and prudent capital deployment. We focus on managing costs, implementing continuous improvement initiatives and collaborating across our businesses to achieve our goals of maximizing earnings and cash and driving return on invested capital.
Following is additional information on each of our business groups. Prior-period information has been restated for the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which we adopted on January 1, 2017, as discussed in Note T to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. For selected financial information, see Note R to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
AEROSPACE
Our Aerospace group is at the forefront of the business-jet industry. We deliver a family of Gulfstream aircraft and provide a range of services for Gulfstream aircraft and aircraft produced by other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). 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.

3



At Gulfstream, we design, develop, manufacture, service and support the world’s most technologically advanced business-jet aircraft. Our 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 of these aircraft are well-suited for the needs of a diverse, global customer base.
We invest in Gulfstream 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. We created a new market with the G650 family of business jets. The G650 is the fastest non-supersonic aircraft to circumnavigate the globe, having flown westbound around the world in a record-setting 41 hours and 7 minutes. The G650 and G650ER have claimed 70 world speed records. The G650 also earned the National Aeronautic Association’s Robert J. Collier Trophy, an annual award recognizing the greatest achievement in U.S. aeronautics or astronautics with respect to improving performance, efficiency and safety. In 2017, we celebrated the five-year anniversary of the G650’s type certification from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its entry into service. Today, there are more than 280 G650 and G650ER aircraft operating in 40 countries.
Our newest Gulfstream products are two clean-sheet large-cabin business jets, the G500 and G600, which exemplify our commitment to performance, safety, efficiency and innovation. The aircraft are progressing through concurrent flight-test programs in preparation for FAA certification. Five G500 test aircraft have completed more than 4,200 test hours since first flight in 2015, and five G600 aircraft have accumulated more than 1,300 test hours since first flight in 2016. Both aircraft have exceeded original expectations throughout our rigorous flight test program. In late 2017, we announced increased performance standards for both aircraft. At Mach 0.85, the G500 can fly 5,200 nautical miles, and the G600 can fly 6,500 nautical miles. The performance of these aircraft demonstrate our culture of continuous improvement and the discipline and rigor inherent in our design, development and flight-test programs.
Our product enhancement and development efforts include initiatives in advanced avionics, composites, renewable fuels, flight-control systems, acoustics, cabin technologies and vision systems. One example is the Symmetry Flight Deck introduced with the G500 and G600, which includes 10 touchscreens and active control sidesticks, a first for business aviation. The touchscreens improve how pilots interact with onboard systems, and the sidesticks are digitally linked to allow both pilots to see and feel each other’s control inputs, enhancing situational awareness and further improving safety of the aircraft.
Gulfstream designs, develops and manufactures aircraft in Savannah, Georgia, including manufacturing all large-cabin models. The mid-cabin model is assembled by a non-U.S. partner. All models are outfitted in the group’s U.S. facilities. In support of Gulfstream’s growing aircraft portfolio and customer base, we continue to invest in our facilities. At our Savannah campus, we have constructed facilities, including purpose-built G500, G600 and G650 manufacturing facilities; increased aircraft service capacity; and opened a new product-support distribution center and dedicated research and development centers.
The group offers extensive support for the more than 2,600 Gulfstream aircraft in service around the world with the largest factory-owned service network in the business-aviation industry, including professionals located around the globe. The service network for Gulfstream aircraft continues to evolve to address the demands of our growing customer base. We operate 12 company-owned service centers worldwide and have more than 20 factory-authorized service centers and authorized warranty facilities. We also operate a 24-hour-per-day/365-day-per-year Customer Contact Center and offer on-call Gulfstream aircraft technicians ready to deploy for customer-service requirements, providing maintenance support on every continent.
Jet Aviation has been a global leader in business aviation services for 50 years, providing comprehensive services and an extensive network of locations for aircraft owners and operators. With approximately 30

4



airport facilities throughout Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East and North America, our service offerings include maintenance, fixed-base operations (FBO), aircraft management, charter and staffing services.
In response to customer demand and the growing installed base of aircraft around the world, we have expanded Jet Aviation’s service network over the past several years and continue to do so. We are expanding our maintenance and FBO facility in Singapore, and in 2017 we opened a new FBO and hangar in Bedford, Massachusetts, and an FBO facility in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. We also took over the management of an FBO at Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we acquired an FBO at Washington Dulles International Airport that has six hangars, 10 acres of ramp space and a newly renovated FBO terminal building.
In addition to these capabilities, Jet Aviation offers custom complex completions for narrow- and wide-body aircraft. We are expanding our Basel, Switzerland, facility to accommodate increased demand for wide-body completions and refurbishments.
As a market leader in the business-aviation industry, the Aerospace group is focused on developing innovative first-to-market technologies and products; providing exemplary and timely service to customers globally; and driving efficiencies in the aircraft production, outfitting and service processes.
Revenue for the Aerospace group was 26% of our consolidated revenue in 2017 and 2016 and 29% in 2015. Revenue by major products and services was as follows:
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
6,320

 
$
6,074

 
$
7,497

Aircraft services
1,743

 
1,625

 
1,569

Pre-owned aircraft
66

 
116

 
111

Total Aerospace
$
8,129

 
$
7,815

 
$
9,177

COMBAT SYSTEMS
Our Combat Systems group offers combat vehicles, weapons systems and munitions for the U.S. government and its allies around the world. We are a platform solutions provider offering market-leading design, development, production, modernization and sustainment services. With extensive, diverse and proven product lines, we have the agility to deliver tailored solutions to meet a wide array of customer mission needs. Comprised of three business units, European Land Systems, Land Systems, and Ordnance and Tactical Systems, the group’s product lines include:
wheeled combat and tactical vehicles;
main battle tanks and tracked combat vehicles;
weapons systems, armament and munitions; and
maintenance, logistics support and sustainment services.
Wheeled combat and tactical vehicles: The group provides a full spectrum of vehicles to a global customer base. The eight-wheeled, medium-weight Stryker combat vehicle continues to prove itself as one of the most versatile vehicles in the U.S. Army’s fleet, combining mobility and survivability into a deployable and responsive combat support vehicle. There are 11 Stryker variants, with 85% commonality across the fleet. We are working with the Army to convert all nine of its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams to our patented double-V-hull configuration, which significantly improves protection for soldiers. We are modernizing the Stryker by upgrading the vehicles’ power train, suspension and network capabilities, with the first of these vehicles delivered in September 2017.

5



We continue to innovate and demonstrate ways in which the Stryker can be modified to help the Army meet its urgent operational needs. In 2015, the Army identified a requirement to increase the lethality of Strykers, and through internal research and development (R&D) and an accelerated acquisition effort, we are adding a 30-millimeter, remotely-operated cannon to 83 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles. We delivered the first prototype in 2016, 15 months after the initial contract award. The first production vehicle was sent to the Germany-based 2nd Cavalry Regiment in December 2017. Another example is our Stryker Maneuver SHORAD Launcher (MSL) vehicle, which we quickly developed to address the Army’s directed requirement to counter closer-in air and missile defense threats by integrating an air defense system missile launcher into a reconfigured Stryker vehicle.
The group has a market-leading position in light armored vehicles (LAVs) with more than 13,000 vehicles delivered around the world. We offer advanced technologies combined with combat-proven survivability. We are upgrading the Canadian Army’s fleet of LAVs to increase mobility, survivability and lethality, as well as enhancing the vehicles’ surveillance suite. We also have a $10 billion contract to provide wheeled armored vehicles along with associated logistics support for a Middle Eastern customer through 2024.
We deliver high-mobility, versatile Pandur and Piranha armored vehicles. The Pandur family of vehicles serves as a common platform for various armament and equipment configurations and the Piranha is a multi-role vehicle well-suited for a variety of combat operations. In 2017, we received a contract from the Austrian Army to supply Pandur 6x6 armored vehicles. We are delivering more than 300 Piranha vehicles in six variants to the Danish Ministry of Defence for its armored personnel carrier program, as well as sustaining the vehicles in the future. The Spanish Army selected the Piranha as its 8x8 armored fighting vehicle, and we are now performing extensive technological trials in anticipation of a production contract. In addition, we are producing Piranha armored vehicles for Ireland, Romania and Switzerland.
The group offers a range of light tactical vehicles to global customers. The Flyer is a lightweight, modular vehicle built for speed and mobility that allows access to previously unreachable terrain in demanding environments. We are delivering this family of vehicles for the U.S. Special Operations Command and the Army’s Ground Mobility Vehicle programs. Outside the United States, the Duro and Eagle vehicles offer a range of options in the 6- to 15-ton weight class. We are upgrading Duro tactical vehicles for the Swiss Army through 2022 and delivering Eagle armored patrol vehicles to the Danish Army, with initial deliveries scheduled for 2018.
Tanks and tracked combat vehicles: Combat Systems’ powerful tracked vehicles provide key combat capabilities to customers around the world. The Abrams main battle tank offers a proven, decisive edge in combat. We are maximizing the effectiveness and lethality of the U.S. Army’s M1A2 Abrams tank fleet with the System Enhancement Package Version 3 (SEPv3), providing technological advancements in communications, power generation, fuel efficiency and improved armor. Internationally, the group is upgrading Abrams tanks for several U.S. allies, including Kuwait, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. In 2017, we received an award to upgrade up to 786 Abrams tanks to the SEPv3 configuration. Additional modernization efforts include integrating multiple engineering changes into the SEPv3 to design and develop SEPv4 prototypes with upgraded sensors.
The ASCOD is a highly versatile tracked combat vehicle with multiple versions, including the Spanish Pizarro and the Austrian Ulan. Currently the group is producing the British Army’s AJAX armoured fighting vehicle, a next-generation version of the ASCOD. In addition to production, the group will provide in-service support for the AJAX vehicle fleet. With six variants, AJAX offers advanced electronic architecture and proven technology for an unparalleled balance of protection, survivability and reliability for a vehicle in its weight class. In 2017, the AJAX vehicles underwent extensive testing trials in preparation for delivery to the British Army, including successful manned live firing trials. The vehicle is scheduled to begin entering into service in 2020.

6



With our large installed base of wheeled and tracked vehicles around the world and the expertise gained from our innovative research, engineering and production programs, we are well-positioned for vehicle modernization programs, support and sustainment services and future development programs.
Weapons systems, armament and munitions: Complementing these military-vehicle offerings, the group designs, develops and produces a comprehensive array of sophisticated weapons systems. For ground forces, we manufacture M2/M2-A1 heavy machine guns and MK19/MK47 grenade launchers. The group also produces legacy and next-generation weapons systems for shipboard applications. For airborne platforms, we produce weapons for fighter aircraft, including high-speed Gatling guns for all U.S. fixed-wing military aircraft.
Our munitions portfolio covers the full breadth of naval, air and ground forces applications across all calibers and weapons platforms for the U.S. government and its allies. In North America, the group maintains a market-leading position in the supply of Hydra-70 rockets, 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 emphasizes operational execution and continuous process improvements to enhance our productivity. In an environment of uncertain threats and evolving customer needs, the group is focused on innovation, affordability and speed-to-market to deliver increased performance and survivable, mission-effective products.
Revenue for the Combat Systems group was 19% of our consolidated revenue in 2017 and 18% in 2016 and 2015. Revenue by major products and services was as follows:
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Wheeled combat and tactical vehicles
$
2,506

 
$
2,444

 
$
2,597

Weapons systems, armament and munitions
1,633

 
1,517

 
1,508

Tanks and tracked vehicles
1,225

 
934

 
805

Engineering and other services
585

 
635

 
733

Total Combat Systems
$
5,949

 
$
5,530

 
$
5,643

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY
Our Information Systems and Technology group provides technologies, products and services in support of thousands of programs for a wide range of military, federal civilian, state and local customers. The group’s market leadership results from decades of domain expertise, incumbency on high-priority programs and continuous innovation to meet the ever-changing information-systems and mission-support needs of our customers. The group’s diverse portfolio includes:
IT solutions and mission-support services;
mobile communication, computers and command-and-control (C4) mission systems; and
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) solutions.
IT solutions and mission-support services: As a trusted systems integrator for more than 50 years, we design, build and operate enterprise information systems, including large-scale, secure IT networks and systems. In addition, we provide a broad range of technical, professional and training services.
Our Information Technology business supports the full enterprise IT lifecycle, designing, integrating, operating, maintaining and modernizing complex data, voice and multimedia networks. Working closely with our customers, we ensure their network infrastructures are secure, efficient, scalable and cost-effective.

7



We have extensive experience consolidating, building and operating data centers. In 2017, we were awarded an enterprise IT contract to support the Defense Logistics Agency’s J6 Enterprise Technology Services program and a contract to modernize NATO’s IT infrastructure that supports NATO member countries. The group was also awarded a large contract to manage an intelligence community agency’s global data center and hybrid cloud environment.
The group is at the forefront of agile development, big data analytics and cloud and virtualization technologies and services, offering solutions that meet multiple federal government and military compliance requirements. We developed and deployed the largest virtual desktop environment for the intelligence community, with over 80,000 users. We also support security operations and computer network defense centers across multiple intelligence agencies, with more than 100,000 accounts and 50,000 devices across classified and unclassified networks.
We provide leading-edge training strategies and technologies for military operations, range support, simulation and professional development. For example, we deliver education curricula and training throughout the Navy and live, virtual, constructive and gaming capabilities to more than half of the Army’s Mission Training Complexes. In 2017, we were awarded three contracts to continue delivering education and training support services to the Naval Education and Training Command.
The group’s technical and professional support services include providing domain specialists and technical solutions to help customers meet technology, operational, critical planning and staffing needs. We provide these services to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Special Operations Command, and intelligence and defense customers, as well as to federal civilian agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
C4 mission systems: We design, build, integrate, deploy and support communications, command-and-control and computer mission systems; imagery, signals- and multi-intelligence systems; and cyber security systems for customers in the U.S. defense, intelligence and homeland security communities, as well as U.S. allies.
Our Mission Systems business is a leading manufacturer and integrator of tactical, secure communications systems. As the prime contractor on the Common Hardware Systems-4 (CHS-4) contract, we provide the Army with next-generation computing and communications equipment. We are also the prime contractor for the Army’s backbone mobile communications network named Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). WIN-T Increment 1 was rapidly deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan beginning in 2004 and by 2012 was fully fielded to the Army, National Guard and Reserves. Increment 2 has been fielded to nine division headquarters and 15 brigade combat teams, providing a more capable and resilient network, on-the-move capabilities and the ability to quickly insert new technologies into the system. We continue to work closely with our Army customer to evolve its next-generation combat network to meet the threats of the future.
With a 50-year legacy in radio frequency communications and networks, the group offers a range of radio products and systems for military, government and commercial customers, as well as long-term evolution (LTE) broadband communications networks for first responders. Our AN/USC-61(C) Digital Modular Radio (DMR) is the first software-defined radio to become a communications system standard for the U.S. military. We recently added the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) waveform to the DMR, providing secure ultra-high frequency satellite communications. The group continues to deliver CM-300/350 V2 digital radios to the FAA, used by air traffic control centers, commercial airports, military air stations and range installations for reliable ground-to-air communications.

8



We provide many of these capabilities to non-U.S. agencies and commercial customers. We have developed and deployed and continue to modernize and support the Canadian Army’s fully integrated, secure combat voice and data network. We leveraged this experience to deliver the U.K. Ministry of Defence’s Bowman tactical communication system, for which we currently provide ongoing support and capability upgrades. We were awarded a contract in 2017 for the U.K.’s next-generation tactical communication and information system. The program, known as Morpheus, will modernize communications and command-and-control systems across three armed services by evolving the Bowman network into a more open, agile architecture. In Canada, our public safety-focused communication system, the SHIELD Ecosystem, allows first responders to gather and exchange information quickly using digital applications on secure systems and provides the availability and location of in-field personnel at all times.
In command-and-control systems, we have a 50-year legacy of providing advanced fire-control systems for Navy submarine programs, and we are developing and integrating commercial off-the-shelf software and hardware upgrades to improve the tactical control capabilities for several submarine classes. The group’s combat and seaframe control systems serve as the technology backbone for the Navy’s Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ships. In addition, the group manufactures unmanned undersea vehicles for the U.S. military and commercial customers, offering a range of systems and configurations, including more than 70 different sensors on 80 vehicles that can operate in the open ocean and constrained waterways.
We also deliver high-assurance mission and display systems, signal and sensor processing and command-and-control solutions for airborne platforms. Our aircraft mission computers are on the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighter and the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II aircraft, giving pilots advanced situational awareness and combat systems control. The P-3 Orion and other maritime patrol aircraft use our digital stores management system.
ISR solutions: The Information Systems and Technology group provides ISR capabilities to a variety of classified programs. Our expertise includes multi-intelligence ground systems and large-scale, high-performance data and signal processing. We deliver high-reliability, long-life sensors and payloads designed to perform in the most extreme environments, including undersea sensor and power systems and space payloads.
Cyber security solutions are embedded throughout the group’s IT and systems engineering programs. We deliver comprehensive cyber security-related products and services to help customers defend and protect their networks from the persistent and growing cyber threat. We continue to evolve our TACLANE family of network encryptors, the most widely-deployed NSA-certified Type 1 encryption device, and our NSA-certified ProtecD@R family of data-at-rest encryptors, which protect stored data on computers, tactical platforms, sensors and servers. We released TACLANE-FLEX in 2017, a scalable and flexible solution that supports additional networking and security capabilities. The group also delivers technologies that provide access to information at various security levels, accommodating the increased demand for cloud computing and mobility. We acquired a company in 2017 that expands our multi-level security capabilities with products intended for tactical use.
The Information Systems and Technology group’s market is diverse and dynamic. We are focused on maintaining a market-leading position by developing innovative solutions to meet customer requirements and optimizing the performance of the business to ensure cost competitiveness. The group is well-positioned to continue meeting the needs of our broad customer base.

9



Revenue for the Information Systems and Technology group was 29% of our consolidated revenue in 2017, 30% in 2016 and 28% in 2015. Revenue by major products and services was as follows:

Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
IT services
$
4,410

 
$
4,428

 
$
4,510

C4ISR solutions
4,481

 
4,716

 
4,419

Total Information Systems and Technology
$
8,891

 
$
9,144

 
$
8,929

MARINE SYSTEMS
With shipyards located on both U.S. coasts, our Marine Systems group is a market-leading designer and builder of nuclear-powered submarines, surface combatants, and auxiliary and combat-logistics ships for the U.S. Navy and Jones Act ships for commercial customers, as well as a provider of repair services for several U.S. Navy ship classes. The group’s portfolio of platforms and capabilities includes:
nuclear-powered submarines;
surface combatants;
auxiliary and combat-logistics ships;
commercial product carriers and containerships;
design and engineering support services; and
maintenance, modernization and lifecycle support services.
We have a long history as one of the primary shipbuilders for the Navy, constructing and delivering ships and designing and developing next-generation platforms. More than 90% of the group’s revenue is for Navy engineering, construction and lifecycle support awarded under large, multi-year contracts.
We are the prime contractor for the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine program. Designed for the full range of global mission requirements, these stealthy boats excel in littoral and open-ocean environments. The Navy is procuring Virginia-class submarines in multi-boat blocks. Electric Boat continues to operate at a two submarines-per-year construction rate. We have delivered 15 Virginia-class submarines in conjunction with an industry partner that shares in the construction, and the remaining 13 submarines under contract are scheduled for delivery through 2023. Since delivering the lead Virginia-class submarine, the cost and time to deliver follow-on ships has been reduced consistently and significantly, from 84 months to 66 months, while improving the mission capability and quality of the ships at delivery.
We are also developing the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) for the fifth block of Virginia-class submarines expected to start construction in 2019. This block of submarines will provide a significant upgrade in size and performance. The VPM is an 84-foot hull section that will add four additional payload tubes, more than tripling the strike capacity of these submarines and preserving the United States’ critical undersea capabilities.
The group is the prime contractor for design and construction of the Navy’s Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, a 12-boat program that the Navy considers its top priority. These submarines will provide strategic deterrent capabilities for decades and will begin to come on line when the current Ohio-class fleet reaches the end of its service life starting in 2027. The lead ship is slated to start construction in 2021, with delivery to the Navy in 2027. We were awarded a contract in 2017 to finish the design and begin prototype development of the lead boat, an important step to keep the program on schedule. We are investing in our workforce and facilities, including a new automated frame and cylinder facility in Quonset Point, Rhode Island. Steel for the first Columbia-class hull was cut in 2016, and missile tubes are under construction to

10



support the Common Missile Compartment work under joint development for the U.S. Navy and the U.K. Royal Navy.
We are the lead designer and builder of the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) guided-missile destroyers, managing the design, modernization and lifecycle support. These highly capable, multi-mission ships provide offensive and defensive capabilities and are capable of simultaneously fighting air, surface and subsurface battles. The Navy restarted this program in 2010 after a four-year break in construction and Bath Iron Works delivered the first ship in the restart program to the Navy in 2017. We have construction contracts for seven DDG-51s scheduled for delivery through 2024.
Bath Iron Works is one of the Navy’s contractors involved in the development and construction of the Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) platform, the Navy’s next-generation guided-missile destroyer. These ships are equipped with numerous technological enhancements, including a low radar profile, an integrated power system and a software environment that ties together nearly every system on the ship. DDG-1000s will provide independent forward presence and deterrence, support special operations forces, and operate as an integral part of joint and combined expeditionary forces. We delivered the first ship in 2016. The second ship is expected to deliver in 2018 with the final ship scheduled for delivery in 2020.
NASSCO is building Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) auxiliary support ships, a second variant of the Expeditionary Support Dock (ESD) ships, which serve as floating forward staging bases to improve the Navy and Marine Corps’ ability to deliver large-scale equipment and expeditionary forces to areas without adequate port access. ESBs, equipped with a 52,000-square-foot flight deck and accommodations for up to 250 personnel, are capable of supporting a variety of missions, including airborne mine countermeasure, maritime security operations and disaster relief missions. The group has delivered three ships in the program, and construction is underway on the fourth and fifth ships, scheduled for delivery in early 2018 and 2019, respectively.
NASSCO was awarded a design and construction contract in 2016 for the lead ship in the Navy’s new class of fleet oilers, the John Lewis class (TAO-205), along with options for five additional ships. Designed to transfer fuel to Navy surface ships operating at sea, the oilers will have the capacity to carry 156,000 barrels of fuel as well as offer a significant dry cargo capacity and aviation capability. Engineering and design work is underway for the first ship, with construction scheduled to begin in late 2018.
Our Marine Systems group provides comprehensive ship and submarine maintenance, modernization and lifecycle support services to extend the service life and maximize the value of these ships. NASSCO conducts full-service maintenance and surface-ship repair operations in four primary locations within the Navy’s largest U.S. ports and at customer locations around the globe. Electric Boat provides submarine maintenance and modernization services in a variety of U.S. locations, and Bath Iron Works provides lifecycle support services for Navy surface ships. In support of allied navies, the group offers program management, planning, engineering and design support for submarine and surface-ship construction programs.
In addition to our work for the Navy, the Marine Systems group has extensive experience in all phases of ship construction for commercial customers, designing and building oil and product tankers and container and cargo ships for commercial markets since the 1970s. These ships help our commercial customers satisfy the Jones Act requirement that ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports be built in U.S. shipyards. The group has advanced commercial shipbuilding technology with NASSCO’s design and delivery of the world’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered containerships, using green ship technology to dramatically decrease emissions while increasing fuel efficiency. From 2014 to 2017, NASSCO constructed and delivered eight LNG-conversion-ready product tankers for commercial customers. During this time, the company achieved several first-time milestones, including a record throughput of 60,000 tons of steel per year and the delivery

11



of six ships in 2016. We are currently designing and constructing two new LNG-capable containerships with roll-on, roll-off capability with deliveries scheduled for 2019 and 2020.
To further the group’s goals of operating efficiency, innovation and affordability for the customer, we make strategic investments in our business, often in cooperation with the Navy. In addition, the Marine Systems group 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 customers.
Revenue for the Marine Systems group was 26% of our consolidated revenue in 2017 and 2016 and 25% in 2015. Revenue by major products and services was as follows:
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Nuclear-powered submarines
$
5,175

 
$
5,264

 
$
5,010

Surface combatants
1,043

 
994

 
1,081

Auxiliary and commercial ships
564

 
654

 
672

Repair and other services
1,222

 
1,160

 
1,269

Total Marine Systems
$
8,004

 
$
8,072

 
$
8,032


CUSTOMERS
In 2017, 61% of our consolidated revenue was from the U.S. government, 15% was from U.S. commercial customers, 13% was from non-U.S. commercial customers and the remaining 11% was from non-U.S. government customers.
U.S. GOVERNMENT
Our primary customer is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). We also contract with other U.S. government customers, including the intelligence community, the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, and first-responder agencies. Our revenue from the U.S. government was as follows:
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
DoD
$
15,498

 
$
15,139

 
$
14,694

Non-DoD
2,847

 
2,824

 
2,831

Foreign Military Sales (FMS)*
676

 
713

 
453

Total U.S. government
$
19,021

 
$
18,676

 
$
17,978

% of total revenue
61
%
 
61
%
 
57
%
* In addition to our direct non-U.S. sales, we sell to non-U.S. 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 non-U.S. government customer.
Our U.S. government businesses operate 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, 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 generally reimburses us for the cost of materials.

12



In our U.S. government business, fixed-price contracts accounted for 54% in 2017, 53% in 2016 and 55% in 2015; cost-reimbursement contracts accounted for 42% in 2017, 43% in 2016 and 41% in 2015; and time-and-materials contracts accounted for 4% in each of the past three years.
For information on the advantages and disadvantages of each of these contract types, see Note B to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
U.S. COMMERCIAL
Our U.S. commercial revenue was $4.5 billion in 2017 and 2016 and $5.5 billion in 2015. This represented 15% of our consolidated revenue in 2017 and 2016 and 17% in 2015. The majority of this revenue is for business-jet aircraft and related services where our customer base consists of individuals and public and privately held companies across a wide range of industries.
NON-U.S.
Our revenue from non-U.S. government and commercial customers was $7.5 billion in 2017, $7.4 billion in 2016 and $8.3 billion in 2015. This represented 24% of our consolidated revenue in 2017 and 2016 and 26% in 2015.
We conduct business with customers around the world. Our non-U.S. defense subsidiaries have established themselves as principal regional suppliers and employers, providing a broad portfolio of products and services and maintaining long-term relationships with their customers.
Our non-U.S. 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. While the installed base of aircraft is concentrated in North America, orders from non-U.S. customers represent a significant segment of our aircraft business with approximately 55% of the Aerospace group’s total backlog on December 31, 2017.

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, safety and cost competitiveness of our products and services;
our ability to innovate and develop new products and technologies 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;
the reputation and customer confidence derived from past performance; and
the successful management of customer relationships.
DEFENSE MARKET COMPETITION
The U.S. government contracts with numerous domestic and non-U.S. 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. Outside the United States, we compete with global defense contractors’ exports and the offerings of private and state-owned defense manufacturers. Our Combat Systems group competes with a large number of U.S. and non-U.S. businesses. Our Information Systems and Technology group competes with many companies, from large defense companies to small niche competitors with specialized technologies or expertise. Our Marine Systems group has one primary

13



competitor with which it also partners on the Virginia-class submarine program. 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 a spectrum of capabilities to meet the customer’s requirements. Opportunities associated with these programs include roles as the program’s integrator, overseeing and coordinating the efforts of all participants on a team, or as a provider of a specific component or subsystem.
BUSINESS-JET AIRCRAFT MARKET COMPETITION
The Aerospace group has several competitors for each of its Gulfstream products. 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 the business-jet aircraft services market primarily on the basis of price, quality and timeliness. In our 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 our completions business, the group competes with several service 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 in Item 7.
Summary backlog information for each of our business groups follows:
 
 
 
 
 
2017 Total
Backlog Not
Expected to Be
Completed in 2018
December 31
2017
 
2016
 
 
Funded
 
Unfunded
 
Total
 
Funded
 
Unfunded
 
Total
 
Aerospace
$
12,319

 
$
147

 
$
12,466

 
$
13,119

 
$
96

 
$
13,215

 
$
6,360

Combat Systems
17,158

 
458

 
17,616

 
17,206

 
597

 
17,803

 
12,303

Information
    Systems and
    Technology
6,682

 
2,192

 
8,874

 
6,458

 
2,007

 
8,465

 
3,307

Marine Systems
15,872

 
8,347

 
24,219

 
15,000

 
7,723

 
22,723

 
16,764

Total backlog
$
52,031

 
$
11,144

 
$
63,175

 
$
51,783

 
$
10,423

 
$
62,206

 
$
38,734


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
To foster innovative product development and evolution, we conduct sustained R&D activities as part of our normal business operations. 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 activities, investing in technologies and capabilities that provide innovative solutions for our customers. In accordance with government regulations, we recover a portion of company-sponsored R&D expenditures through overhead

14



charges to U.S. government contracts. For more information on our company-sponsored R&D activities, including our expenditures for the past three years, see Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

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, 2017, our subsidiaries had 98,600 employees, approximately one-fifth of whom work under collective agreements with various labor unions and worker representatives. Agreements covering approximately 2% of total employees are due to expire in 2018. Historically, we have renegotiated these 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. Our U.S. government customer is a supplier on some of our programs. 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 sometimes rely on only one or two sources of supply that, if disrupted, could impact our ability to meet our customer commitments. We attempt to mitigate 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 seasonal in nature. The receipt of contract awards, the availability of funding from the customer, the incurrence of contract costs and unit deliveries are all factors that influence the timing of our revenue. In the United States, these factors are influenced by the federal government’s budget cycle based on its October-to-September fiscal 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

15



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.
In addition, the FAR addresses the allowability of our costs, while the CAS addresses the allocation of those costs to contracts. The FAR and CAS subject us to audits and other government reviews covering issues such as cost, performance, internal controls and accounting practices relating to our contracts.
NON-U.S. REGULATORY
Our non-U.S. revenue is subject to the applicable 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 materials, substances and wastes identified in the laws and regulations. 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 are potentially liable to the government or third parties for the cost of remediating contamination. 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 O to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.


16



AVAILABLE INFORMATION
We file 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) 876-3117. The SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information. 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.

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.
Our revenue is concentrated with the U.S. government. This customer relationship involves some specific risks. In addition, our sales to non-U.S. customers expose us to different financial and legal risks. Despite the varying nature of our U.S. and non-U.S. 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 revenue. In 2017, approximately 60% of our consolidated revenue was from the U.S. government. Levels of U.S. defense spending are driven by threats to national security. Competing demands for federal funds can pressure various areas of spending. Decreases in U.S. government defense spending or changes in spending allocation or priorities could result in one or more of our programs being reduced, delayed or terminated, which could impact our financial performance.
For additional information relating to the U.S. defense budget, see the Business Environment section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7.
U.S. government contracts are not always fully funded at inception, and any funding is subject to disruption or delay. Our U.S. government revenue is 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 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 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, which has occurred in recent years. 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 continuing resolution that maintains spending at prior-year levels, which can impact funding for

17



our programs and timing of new awards. Second, Congress typically appropriates funds on a fiscal-year basis, even though contract performance may extend over many years. Future revenue under existing multi-year contracts is 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.
Our U.S. government contracts are subject to termination rights by the customer. 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 incurred 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 termination of multiple or large programs could have a material adverse effect on our future revenue and earnings.
Government contractors operate in a highly regulated environment and are subject to audit by the U.S. government. Numerous 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 compliance with, internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, material, earned value management and accounting systems. In some cases, audits may result in delayed payments or 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. In some cases, audits may result in disputes with the respective government agency that can result in negotiated settlements, arbitration or litigation. Moreover, new laws, regulations or standards, or changes to existing ones, can increase our performance and compliance costs and reduce our profitability.
Our Aerospace group is subject to changing customer demand for business aircraft. The business-jet market is driven by the demand for business-aviation products and services by corporate, individual and government customers in the United States and around the world. The Aerospace group’s results also depend on other factors, including general economic conditions, the availability of credit, pricing pressures and trends in capital goods markets. In addition, if customers default on existing contracts and the contracts are not replaced, the group’s anticipated revenue and profitability could be reduced materially.
Earnings and margin depend on our ability to perform on our contracts. When agreeing to contractual terms, our management team makes assumptions and projections about future conditions and events. The accounting for our contracts and programs requires assumptions and estimates about these conditions and events. These projections and estimates 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, estimates or assumptions, or if the risks under our contracts are not managed adequately, the profitability of contracts could be adversely affected. This could affect earnings and margin materially.

18



Earnings and margin 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 and applicable law. Misconduct by subcontractors, such as a failure to comply with procurement regulations or engaging in unauthorized activities, may harm our future revenue and earnings. We manage our supplier base carefully to avoid customer issues. 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 may be materially adversely affected if one or more of these suppliers is unable to provide the agreed-upon materials, perform the agreed-upon services in a timely and cost-effective manner, or engages in misconduct or other improper activities.
Sales and operations outside the United States are subject to different 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 non-U.S. business may be sensitive to changes in a foreign government’s budgets, leadership and national priorities, which may occur suddenly. Non-U.S. transactions can involve increased financial and legal risks arising from foreign exchange-rate variability and differing legal systems. Our non-U.S. business is subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including laws and regulations relating to import-export controls, technology transfers, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). An unfavorable event or trend in any one or more of these factors or a failure to comply with U.S. or foreign laws could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including suspension or debarment from government contracts or suspension of our export privileges, and could materially adversely affect revenue and earnings associated with our non-U.S. business.
In addition, some non-U.S. government customers require contractors to enter into letters of credit, performance or surety bonds, bank guarantees and other similar financial arrangements. We may also be required to agree to specific in-country purchases, manufacturing agreements or financial support arrangements, known as offsets, that require us to satisfy investment or other requirements or face penalties. Offset requirements may extend over several years and could require us to team with local companies to fulfill these requirements. If we do not satisfy these financial or offset requirements, our future revenue 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. Some new products, particularly in our Aerospace group, must meet extensive and time-consuming regulatory requirements that are often outside our control. Additionally, due to 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 were unable to develop new products that meet customers’ changing needs and satisfy regulatory requirements in a timely manner or successfully attract and retain qualified personnel, our future revenue and earnings may be materially adversely affected.
We have made and expect to continue to make investments, including acquisitions and joint ventures, that involve risks and uncertainties. When evaluating potential acquisitions and joint ventures,

19



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, including some that may not have been identified prior to the acquisition. These factors could materially adversely affect our financial results.
Changes in business conditions may cause goodwill and other intangible assets to become impaired. Goodwill represents the purchase price paid in excess of the fair value of net tangible and intangible assets acquired in a business combination. Goodwill is not amortized and remains on our balance sheet indefinitely unless there is an impairment or a sale of a portion of the business. Goodwill 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 business groups or a decision to dispose of a business group or a significant portion of a business group. We face some uncertainty in our business environment due to a variety of challenges, including changes in defense spending. We may experience unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect the value of our goodwill or intangible assets and trigger an evaluation of the amount of the recorded goodwill and intangible assets. Future write-offs of goodwill or other intangible assets as a result of an impairment in the business could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
Our business could be negatively impacted by cyber security events and other disruptions. We face various cyber security threats, including threats to our information technology (IT) infrastructure and attempts to gain access to our proprietary or classified information, denial-of-service attacks, as well as threats to the physical security of our facilities and employees, and threats from terrorist acts. We also design and manage IT systems and products that contain IT systems for various customers. We generally face the same security threats for these systems as for our own internal systems. In addition, we face cyber threats from entities that may seek to target us through our customers, vendors, subcontractors and other third parties with whom we do business. Accordingly, we maintain information security staff, policies and procedures for managing risk to our information systems, and conduct employee training on cyber security to mitigate persistent and continuously evolving cyber security threats. We have experienced cyber security threats such as viruses and attacks targeting our IT systems. Such prior events have not had a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However, future threats could, among other things, cause harm to our business and our reputation; disrupt our operations; expose us to potential liability, regulatory actions and loss of business; challenge our eligibility for future work on sensitive or classified systems for government customers; and impact our results of operations materially. Due to the evolving nature of these security threats, the potential impact of any future incident cannot be predicted. Our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all the costs related to cyber security attacks or disruptions resulting from such events.

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. Examples include projections of revenue, earnings, operating margin, segment performance, cash flows, contract awards, aircraft production, deliveries and backlog. In making these statements we rely on assumptions and analyses based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments as well as other factors we consider appropriate under the circumstances. We believe our estimates and judgments are reasonable based on information available to us at the time. 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 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 Form 10-K.
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. These factors may be revised or supplemented in subsequent reports on SEC Forms 10-Q and 8-K.

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, 2017, our business groups had primary operations at the following locations:
Aerospace – Burbank, Lincoln, Long Beach and Van Nuys, California; West Palm Beach, Florida; Brunswick and Savannah, Georgia; Cahokia, Illinois; Bedford and Westfield, Massachusetts; Las Vegas, Nevada; Teterboro, New Jersey; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Dulles, Virginia; Appleton, Wisconsin; Vienna, Austria; Sorocaba, Brazil; Beijing and Hong Kong, China; Berlin, Dusseldorf and Munich, Germany; Valetta, Malta; Mexicali, Mexico; Moscow, Russia; Singapore; Basel, Geneva and Zurich, Switzerland; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Luton and Stansted, United Kingdom.
Combat Systems – Anniston, Alabama; East Camden and Hampton, Arkansas; Crawfordsville, St. Petersburg and Tallahassee, Florida; Marion, Illinois; Saco, Maine; Sterling Heights, Michigan; Joplin,

20



Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; Lima, Ohio; Eynon, Red Lion and Scranton, Pennsylvania; Ladson, South Carolina; Garland, Texas; Williston, Vermont; Auburn and Sumner, Washington; Vienna, Austria; La Gardeur, London, St. Augustin and Valleyfield, Canada; Kaiserslautern, Germany; Granada, Madrid, Sevilla and Trubia, Spain; Kreuzlingen, Switzerland; Merthyr Tydfil and Oakdale, United Kingdom.
Information Systems and Technology – Cullman, Alabama; Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona; San Jose, California; Pawcatuck, Connecticut; Lynn Haven and Riverview, Florida; Lawrence, Kansas; Annapolis Junction and Towson, Maryland; Dedham, Pittsfield, Taunton and Westwood, Massachusetts; Bloomington, Minnesota; Hattiesburg, Mississippi; Catawba, Conover and Greensboro, North Carolina; Kilgore, Plano and Wortham, Texas; Sandy, Utah; Chesapeake, Chester, Marion and several locations in Fairfax County, Virginia; Calgary and Ottawa, Canada; Tallinn, Estonia; Merthyr Tydfil, Oakdale and St. Leonards, United Kingdom.
Marine Systems – San Diego, California; Groton and New London, Connecticut; Jacksonville, Florida; Bath and Brunswick, Maine; North Kingstown, Rhode Island; Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia; Bremerton, Washington; Mexicali, Mexico.
A summary of floor space by business group on December 31, 2017, follows:
(Square feet in millions)
Company-owned
Facilities
 
Leased
Facilities
 
Government-owned
Facilities
 
Total
Aerospace
5.9

 
7.4

 

 
13.3

Combat Systems
7.2

 
3.7

 
5.5

 
16.4

Information Systems and Technology
2.8

 
7.7

 
0.9

 
11.4

Marine Systems
8.1

 
2.8

 

 
10.9

Total square feet
24.0

 
21.6

 
6.4

 
52.0


ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
For information relating to legal proceedings, see Note O to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
 
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY
All of our executive officers are appointed annually. None of our executive officers were selected pursuant to any arrangement or understanding between the officer and any other person. The name, age, offices and positions of our executives held for at least the past five years as of February 12, 2018, were as follows (references are to positions with General Dynamics Corporation, unless otherwise noted):

21



Name, Position and Office
Age
 
 
Jason W. Aiken - Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since January 2014; Vice President of the company and Chief Financial Officer of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, September 2011 - December 2013; Vice President and Controller, April 2010 - August 2011; Staff Vice President, Accounting, July 2006 - March 2010

45
 
 
Mark L. Burns - Vice President of the company and President of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation since July 2015; Vice President of the company since February 2014; President, Product Support of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, June 2008 - June 2015
58
 
 
John P. Casey - Executive Vice President, Marine Systems, since May 2012; Vice President of the company and President of Electric Boat Corporation, October 2003 - May 2012; Vice President of Electric Boat Corporation, October 1996 - October 2003
63
 
 
Gregory S. Gallopoulos - Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since January 2010; Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, July 2008 - January 2010; Managing Partner of Jenner & Block LLP, January 2005 - June 2008
58
 
 
Jeffrey S. Geiger - Vice President of the company and President of Electric Boat Corporation since November 2013; Vice President of the company and President of Bath Iron Works Corporation, April 2009 - November 2013; Senior Vice President, Operations and Engineering of Bath Iron Works Corporation, March 2008 - March 2009
56
 
 
M. Amy Gilliland - Senior Vice President of the company since April 2015; President of General Dynamics Information Technology since September 2017; Deputy for Operations of General Dynamics Information Technology, April 2017 - September 2017; Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration, April 2015 - March 2017; Vice President, Human Resources, February 2014 - March 2015; Staff Vice President, Strategic Planning, January 2013 - February 2014; Staff Vice President, Investor Relations, June 2008 - January 2013
43
 
 
Robert W. Helm - Senior Vice President, Planning and Development since May 2010; Vice President, Government Relations, of Northrop Grumman Corporation, August 1989 - April 2010

66
 
 
S. Daniel Johnson - Executive Vice President, Information Systems and Technology since January 2015; President of General Dynamics Information Technology, April 2008 - September 2017; Vice President of the company, April 2008 - December 2014; Executive Vice President of General Dynamics Information Technology, July 2006 - March 2008
70
 
 
Kimberly A. Kuryea - Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration since April 2017; Vice President and Controller, September 2011 - March 2017; Chief Financial Officer of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, November 2007 - August 2011; Staff Vice President, Internal Audit, March 2004 - October 2007
50
 
 
Christopher Marzilli - Vice President of the company and President of General Dynamics Mission Systems since January 2015; Vice President of the company and President of General Dynamics C4 Systems, January 2006 - December 2014; Senior Vice President and Deputy General Manager of General Dynamics C4 Systems, November 2003 - January 2006
58
 
 
William A. Moss - Vice President and Controller since April 2017; Staff Vice President, Internal Audit, May 2015 - March 2017; Staff Vice President, Accounting, August 2010 - May 2015
54
 
 
Phebe N. Novakovic - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since January 2013; President and Chief Operating Officer, May 2012 - December 2012; Executive Vice President, Marine Systems, May 2010 - May 2012; Senior Vice President, Planning and Development, July 2005 - May 2010; Vice President, Strategic Planning, October 2002 - July 2005
60
 
 
Mark C. Roualet - Executive Vice President, Combat Systems, since March 2013; Vice President of the company and President of General Dynamics Land Systems, October 2008 - March 2013; Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of General Dynamics Land Systems, July 2007 - October 2008
59
 
 

22



Gary L. Whited - Vice President of the company and President of General Dynamics Land Systems since March 2013; Senior Vice President of General Dynamics Land Systems, September 2011 - March 2013; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of General Dynamics Land Systems, June 2006 - September 2011
57

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 2016 and 2017 are included in the Supplementary Data contained in Item 8.
On January 28, 2018, there were approximately 11,000 holders of record of our common stock.
For information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans, see Note P to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8.
We did not make any unregistered sales of equity securities in 2017.
The following table provides information about our fourth-quarter purchases of equity securities that are registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended:
Period
 
Total Number of Shares Purchased
 
Average Price Paid per Share
 
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Program
 
Maximum Number of Shares That May Yet Be Purchased Under the Program
Pursuant to Share Buyback Program
 
 
 
 
10/2/17-10/29/17
 
475,000

 
$
211.58

 
475,000

 
9,058,696

10/30/17-11/26/17
 
669,835

 
200.78

 
669,835

 
8,388,861

11/27/17-12/31/17
 
803,451

 
200.53

 
803,451

 
7,585,410

 
 
1,948,286

 
$
203.31

 
 
 
 
For additional information relating to our purchases of common stock during the past three years, see Financial Condition, Liquidity and Capital Resources - Financing Activities - Share Repurchases contained in Item 7.
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.

23



Cumulative Total Return
Based on Investments of $100 Beginning December 31, 2012
(Assumes Reinvestment of Dividends)
gd20171231chart-4.jpg

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)
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Summary of Operations
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revenue
 
$
30,973

 
$
30,561

 
$
31,781

 
$
30,852

 
$
30,930

Operating earnings
 
4,177

 
3,734

 
4,295

 
3,889

 
3,689

Operating margin
 
13.5
%
 
12.2
%
 
13.5
%
 
12.6
%
 
11.9
%
Interest, net
 
(103
)
 
(91
)
 
(83
)
 
(86
)
 
(86
)
Provision for income tax, net
 
1,165

 
977

 
1,183

 
1,129

 
1,125

Earnings from continuing operations
 
2,912

 
2,679

 
3,036

 
2,673

 
2,486

Return on sales (a)
 
9.4
%
 
8.8
%
 
9.6
%
 
8.7
%
 
8.0
%
Discontinued operations, net of tax
 

 
(107
)
 

 
(140
)
 
(129
)
Net earnings
 
2,912

 
2,572

 
3,036

 
2,533

 
2,357

Diluted earnings per share:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Continuing operations
 
9.56

 
8.64

 
9.29

 
7.83

 
7.03

Net earnings
 
9.56

 
8.29

 
9.29

 
7.42

 
6.67

Cash Flows
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net cash provided by operating activities
 
$
3,879

 
$
2,198

 
$
2,607

 
$
3,828

 
$
3,159

Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
 
(791
)
 
(426
)
 
200

 
(1,102
)
 
(363
)
Net cash used by financing activities
 
(2,399
)
 
(2,169
)
 
(4,367
)
 
(3,675
)
 
(773
)
Net cash (used) provided by discontinued operations
 
(40
)
 
(54
)
 
(43
)
 
36

 
(18
)
Cash dividends declared per common share
 
3.36

 
3.04

 
2.76

 
2.48

 
2.24

Financial Position
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and equivalents
 
$
2,983

 
$
2,334

 
$
2,785

 
$
4,388

 
$
5,301

Total assets
 
35,046

 
33,172

 
32,538

 
34,648

 
35,158

Short- and long-term debt
 
3,982

 
3,888

 
3,399

 
3,893

 
3,888

Shareholders’ equity
 
11,435

 
10,301

 
10,440

 
11,829

 
14,501

Debt-to-equity (b)
 
34.8
%
 
37.7
%
 
32.6
%
 
32.9
%
 
26.8
%
Book value per share (c)
 
38.52

 
34.06

 
33.36

 
35.61

 
41.03

Other Information
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Free cash flow from operations (d)
 
$
3,451

 
$
1,806

 
$
2,038

 
$
3,307

 
$
2,723

Return on invested capital (d)
 
16.8
%
 
16.3
%
 
18.1
%
 
15.1
%
 
14.1
%
Funded backlog
 
52,031

 
51,783

 
53,449

 
52,929

 
38,284

Total backlog
 
63,175

 
62,206

 
67,786

 
72,410

 
45,885

Shares outstanding
 
296.9

 
302.4

 
313.0

 
332.2

 
353.4

Weighted average shares outstanding:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
 
299.2

 
304.7

 
321.3

 
335.2

 
350.7

Diluted
 
304.6

 
310.4

 
326.7

 
341.3

 
353.5

Employees
 
98,600

 
98,800

 
99,900

 
99,500

 
96,000

Note: All prior-period information has been restated for the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes. Prior-period information for 2016 and 2015 has been restated for the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, while prior-period information for 2014 and 2013 has not been restated and is, therefore, not comparable to the 2017, 2016 and 2015 information. For further discussion of these two standards, see Note T to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
(a)
Return on sales is calculated as earnings from continuing operations divided by revenue.
(b)
Debt-to-equity ratio is calculated as total debt divided by total equity as of year end.
(c)
Book value per share is calculated as total equity divided by total outstanding shares as of year end.
(d)
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 and the calculation of return on invested capital (ROIC), both of which are non-GAAP management metrics.


25



ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts or unless otherwise noted)
For an overview of our business groups, including a discussion of our major products and services, see the Business discussion contained in Item 1. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8.
On February 12, 2018, we announced that we had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire all of the outstanding shares of CSRA for $40.75 per share in cash. The transaction is valued at $9.6 billion, including the assumption of $2.8 billion in CSRA debt. We anticipate financing the transaction through a combination of available cash and new debt financing. We will commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of CSRA common stock. The tender offer is subject to customary conditions, including antitrust clearance and the tender of a majority of the outstanding shares of CSRA common stock. We expect to complete the acquisition in the first half of 2018. The forward-looking statements contained in Item 7 do not include any estimated amounts for the CSRA acquisition and any associated impacts.

BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
With approximately 60% of our revenue from the U.S. government, our financial performance is impacted by U.S. government spending levels, particularly defense spending. Over the past several years, U.S. defense spending has been mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The BCA establishes spending caps over a 10-year period through 2021.
On February 9, 2018, the Congress approved increases to the BCA spending caps and a budget for fiscal years (FY) 2018 and 2019. The FY 2018 defense budget totals $700 billion, which includes $629 billion in the base budget in compliance with the modified BCA spending caps and $71 billion for overseas contingency operations, representing an increase of more than 10% over FY 2017 spending levels. The FY 2019 defense budget totals $716 billion. However, federal agencies and programs do not receive funding at the new levels until the corresponding appropriations bills are approved. The Congress has not yet passed the FY 2018 defense appropriation bill. As a result, we have been operating under a series of continuing resolutions (CRs), which have funded government agencies at FY 2017 spending levels, since the beginning of the government’s fiscal year. As of the filing of this Form 10-K on February 12, 2018, the current CR, signed into law on February 9, 2018, funds the government through March 23, 2018. We do not anticipate that these CRs will have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
The long-term outlook for our U.S. defense business is influenced by the relevance of our programs to the U.S. military’s funding priorities, the diversity of our programs and customers, 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.
International demand for military equipment and information technologies presents opportunities for our non-U.S. operations and exports from our North American businesses. While the revenue potential can be significant, there are risks to doing business in foreign countries, including changing budget priorities and overall spending pressures unique to each country.
In our Aerospace group, we continue to experience strong demand across our product portfolio. We expect our continued investment in the development of new aircraft products and technologies to support

26



the Aerospace group’s long-term growth. Similarly, we believe the aircraft services business will be a strong source of revenue as the global business-jet fleet grows.
Across our portfolio, we focus on expanding operating earnings and the efficient conversion of earnings into cash. We emphasize effective program execution and the flexibility and agility to respond to changing circumstances in our business environment, and look for opportunities to drive cost reduction across our business.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
An understanding of our accounting practices is necessary in the evaluation of our financial statements and operating results. The following paragraphs explain how we recognize revenue and operating costs in our business groups. We account for revenue in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which we adopted on January 1, 2017. Prior-period information has been restated for the adoption as further discussed in Note T to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
In the Aerospace group, we record revenue on contracts for new aircraft when the customer obtains control of the asset, which is generally upon delivery and acceptance by the customer of the fully outfitted aircraft. Revenue associated with the group’s completions of other original equipment manufacturers’ (OEMs) aircraft and the group’s services businesses is recognized as work progresses or upon delivery of services. Fluctuations in revenue from period to period result from the number and mix of new aircraft deliveries, progress on aircraft completions and the level of aircraft service activity during the period.
The majority of the Aerospace group’s operating costs relate to new aircraft production on firm orders and consist of labor, material, subcontractor and overhead costs. The costs are accumulated in production lots, recorded in inventory and recognized as operating costs at 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 recognized generally as incurred.
For new aircraft, operating earnings and margin are a function of the prices of our aircraft, our operational efficiency in manufacturing and outfitting the aircraft, and the mix of large-cabin and mid-cabin aircraft deliveries. Additional factors affecting the group’s earnings and margin include the volume, mix and profitability of completions and services work performed, the volume of and 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 three defense groups, revenue on long-term government contracts is recognized generally over time as the work progresses, either as the products are produced or as services are rendered. Typically, revenue is recognized over time using costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs at completion to measure progress toward satisfying our performance obligations. Incurred cost represents work performed, which corresponds with, and thereby best depicts, the transfer of control to the customer. Contract costs include labor, material, overhead and, when appropriate, G&A expenses. Variances in costs recognized from period to period reflect primarily increases and decreases in production or activity levels on individual

27



contracts. Because costs are used as a measure of progress, year-over-year variances in cost result in corresponding variances in revenue, which we generally refer to as volume.
Operating earnings and margin in the defense groups are driven by changes in volume, performance or contract mix. Performance refers to changes in profitability based on adjustments to estimates at completion on individual contracts. These adjustments result from increases or decreases to the estimated value of the contract, the estimated costs to complete the contract or both. Therefore, changes in costs incurred in the period compared with prior periods do not necessarily impact profitability. It is only when total estimated costs at completion on a given contract change without a corresponding change in the contract value that the profitability of that contract may be impacted. Contract mix refers to changes in the volume of higher- versus lower-margin work. Additionally, 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).

CONSOLIDATED OVERVIEW
 
 
 
2017 IN REVIEW
Outstanding operating performance:
Revenue increased to $31 billion with growth in our Aerospace and Combat Systems groups.
Operating earnings of $4.2 billion and operating margin of 13.5% increased 11.9% and 130 basis points, respectively, from 2016.
Return on sales increased 60 basis points from 2016 to 9.4%.
Earnings from continuing operations per diluted share of $9.56 increased 10.6% from 2016.
Free cash flow from operations was 119% of earnings from continuing operations.
$2.9 billion of cash deployed for share repurchases, dividends and business acquisitions, consistent with 2016.
Return on invested capital (ROIC) of 16.8%, 50 basis points higher than 2016.
Robust backlog of $63.2 billion increased nearly $1 billion from 2016, supporting our long-term growth expectations.
Net orders for Gulfstream aircraft increased over 20% from 2016.
Several significant contract awards received in 2017 in our defense groups.
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF 2017 VS. 2016
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
Variance
Revenue
$
30,973

 
$
30,561

 
$
412

 
1.3
 %
Operating costs and expenses
26,796

 
26,827

 
(31
)
 
(0.1
)%
Operating earnings
4,177

 
3,734

 
443

 
11.9
 %
Operating margin
13.5
%
 
12.2
%
 
 
 
 
Our consolidated revenue increased in 2017 driven by higher volume across our Combat Systems group and increased revenue from aircraft deliveries and aircraft services in our Aerospace group. These increases

28



were offset partially by lower C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) solutions revenue in our Information Systems and Technology group.
While revenue increased, operating costs and expenses decreased, resulting in an 11.9% increase in operating earnings and margin growth of 130 basis points. Operating earnings and margin expanded at each of our business groups in 2017.
REVIEW OF 2016 VS. 2015
Year Ended December 31
2016
 
2015
 
Variance
Revenue
$
30,561

 
$
31,781

 
$
(1,220
)
 
(3.8
)%
Operating costs and expenses
26,827

 
27,486

 
(659
)
 
(2.4
)%
Operating earnings
3,734

 
4,295

 
(561
)
 
(13.1
)%
Operating margin
12.2
%
 
13.5
%
 
 

 
 

Revenue was down in 2016 due to fewer G550 and G450 large-cabin and G280 mid-cabin aircraft deliveries in our Aerospace group. This decrease was offset partially by higher C4ISR solutions volume in our Information Systems and Technology group. Operating costs and expenses decreased at a lower rate than revenue declined in 2016, resulting in a 130 basis-point decrease in consolidated operating margin compared with 2015. Operating margin decreased in the Aerospace, Combat Systems and Marine Systems groups.

REVIEW OF BUSINESS GROUPS
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
Revenue
 
Operating 
Earnings
 
Revenue
 
Operating
 Earnings
 
Revenue
 
Operating
 Earnings
Aerospace
$
8,129

 
$
1,593

 
$
7,815

 
$
1,407

 
$
9,177

 
$
1,807

Combat Systems
5,949

 
937

 
5,530

 
831

 
5,643

 
886

Information Systems and Technology
8,891

 
1,011

 
9,144

 
941

 
8,929

 
895

Marine Systems
8,004

 
685

 
8,072

 
595

 
8,032

 
748

Corporate*

 
(49
)
 

 
(40
)
 

 
(41
)
Total
$
30,973

 
$
4,177

 
$
30,561

 
$
3,734

 
$
31,781

 
$
4,295

* Corporate operating results consist primarily of stock option expense.
Following is a discussion of operating results and outlook for each of our business groups. For the Aerospace group, results are analyzed by specific types of products and services, consistent with how the group is managed. For the defense groups, the discussion is based on the lines of products and services each group offers with a supplemental discussion of specific contracts and programs when significant to the group’s results. Additional information regarding our business groups can be found in Note R to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

29



AEROSPACE
Review of 2017 vs. 2016
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
Variance
Revenue
$
8,129

 
$
7,815

 
$
314

 
4.0
 %
Operating earnings
1,593

 
1,407

 
186

 
13.2
 %
Operating margin
19.6
%
 
18.0
%
 
 
 
 
Gulfstream aircraft deliveries (in units)
120

 
121

 
(1)

 
(0.8
)%
The increase in the Aerospace group’s revenue in 2017 consisted of the following:
Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
246

Aircraft services
118

Pre-owned aircraft
(50
)
Total increase
$
314

Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions revenue increased due to additional deliveries of the ultra-large-cabin G650 and mid-cabin G280 aircraft. This growth was offset in part by a decrease in the number of G450 and G550 large-cabin aircraft deliveries as we transition from the production of these models to the new G500 and G600, which are scheduled to enter into service in 2018. We also had three fewer pre-owned aircraft sales in 2017 compared with 2016 (five versus eight). Aircraft services revenue increased, driven by higher demand for maintenance work and the small acquisition of a fixed-base operation (FBO) in 2017.
The increase in the group’s operating earnings in 2017 consisted of the following:
Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
238

Aircraft services
8

Pre-owned aircraft
11

G&A/other expenses
(71
)
Total increase
$
186

Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions earnings were up due to favorable cost performance and mix of ultra-large- and large-cabin aircraft deliveries. G&A/other expenses were higher in 2017 due primarily to increased R&D expenses associated with ongoing product-development efforts as the group progresses with the certification of the G500 and G600. Overall, the Aerospace group’s operating margin increased 160 basis points to 19.6%.
Review of 2016 vs. 2015
Year Ended December 31
2016
 
2015
 
Variance
Revenue
$
7,815

 
$
9,177

 
$
(1,362
)
 
(14.8
)%
Operating earnings
1,407

 
1,807

 
(400
)
 
(22.1
)%
Operating margin
18.0
%
 
19.7
%
 
 
 
 
Gulfstream aircraft deliveries (in units)
121

 
152

 
(31)

 
(20.4
)%

30



The Aerospace group’s revenue and operating earnings decreased in 2016 due primarily to fewer G550 and G450 large-cabin and G280 mid-cabin aircraft deliveries. Operating earnings also decreased in 2016 due to a supplier settlement received in 2015 associated with aircraft component design and delivery delays. Partially offsetting these decreases, the group’s aircraft services revenue and operating earnings increased driven by higher demand for maintenance work and the acquisition of an aircraft management and charter services provider in 2016. Aircraft services operating earnings were particularly strong in 2016 due to a favorable mix of work and labor efficiencies. Additionally, the group’s 2016 operating earnings were impacted favorably by lower G&A/other expenses as a result of cost savings initiatives. Overall, the Aerospace group’s operating margin decreased 170 basis points to 18%.
2018 Outlook
We expect the Aerospace group’s 2018 revenue to increase between 2 and 3% from 2017. Operating margin is expected to be 18%, down slightly from 2017 as a result of mix shift as the group transitions to the new G500 and G600 aircraft as well as higher pre-owned aircraft sales.
COMBAT SYSTEMS
Review of 2017 vs. 2016
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
Variance
Revenue
$
5,949

 
$
5,530

 
$
419

 
7.6
%
Operating earnings
937

 
831

 
106

 
12.8
%
Operating margin
15.8
%
 
15.0
%
 
 

 
 

The increase in the Combat Systems group’s revenue in 2017 consisted of the following:
U.S. military vehicles
$
250

Weapons systems and munitions
144

International military vehicles
25

Total increase
$
419

Revenue was up across the Combat Systems group in 2017. Revenue from U.S. military vehicles increased due to higher volume on the Army’s Abrams and Stryker programs, including work to produce Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 (SEPv3) tanks and upgrade Stryker vehicles with an integrated 30-millimeter cannon and additional upgrades. Weapons systems and munitions revenue was up due primarily to increased production of several products, including bombs and Hydra-70 rockets for the U.S. government. Revenue from international military vehicles increased due to the ramp up in production on the British AJAX armoured fighting vehicle program and several international light armored vehicle (LAV) programs, offset largely by lower revenue on a large combat-vehicle contract in the Middle East as the group transitions from engineering to production.
The Combat Systems group’s operating margin increased 80 basis points driven by improved operating performance across the group’s portfolio. Operating earnings in 2016 included the impact of a loss on the design and development phase of the AJAX program.

31



Review of 2016 vs. 2015
Year Ended December 31
2016
 
2015
 
Variance
Revenue
$
5,530

 
$
5,643

 
$
(113
)
 
(2.0
)%
Operating earnings
831

 
886

 
(55
)
 
(6.2
)%
Operating margin
15.0
%
 
15.7
%
 
 
 
 
The Combat Systems group’s revenue decreased in 2016 due primarily to lower international military vehicles revenue driven by decreased volume on the large combat-vehicle contract in the Middle East and the timing of work on the group’s contract to upgrade and modernize LAV III combat vehicles for the Canadian Army. These decreases were offset partially by higher volume on the group’s contract to deliver Piranha vehicles to the Danish Ministry of Defense.
The Combat Systems group’s operating margin decreased 70 basis points in 2016 due primarily to the loss on the design and development phase of the AJAX program. The impact of this loss was offset partially by favorable contract mix and improved operating performance.
2018 Outlook
We expect the Combat Systems group’s 2018 revenue to increase between 3 and 4% from 2017. Operating margin is expected to be in the mid- to high-15% range.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY
Review of 2017 vs. 2016
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
Variance
Revenue
$
8,891

 
$
9,144

 
$
(253
)
 
(2.8
)%
Operating earnings
1,011

 
941

 
70

 
7.4
 %
Operating margin
11.4
%
 
10.3
%
 
 
 
 
The change in the Information Systems and Technology group’s revenue in 2017 consisted of the following:
C4ISR solutions
$
(235
)
Information technology (IT) services
(18
)
Total decrease
$
(253
)
C4ISR solutions revenue decreased as a result of funding delays across a number of programs, including the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) mobile communications network and Common Hardware Systems-4 (CHS-4) computing and communications equipment programs, caused by the seven-month FY 2017 CR. Revenue decreased slightly in our IT services business due to delays in procurement activities across a number of programs, particularly in our federal civilian business, offset largely by the acquisition in late 2017 of a provider of mission-critical support services.
Despite the lower revenue, operating earnings increased, and operating margin expanded 110 basis points. The margin growth was driven primarily by strong program performance and favorable contract mix across the portfolio.

32



Review of 2016 vs. 2015
Year Ended December 31
2016
 
2015
 
Variance
Revenue
$
9,144

 
$
8,929

 
$
215

 
2.4
%
Operating earnings
941

 
895

 
46

 
5.1
%
Operating margin
10.3
%
 
10.0
%
 
 
 
 
Revenue in the Information Systems and Technology group was up in 2016 driven by higher volume across the C4ISR solutions business, including the WIN-T program and several programs in Canada and the United Kingdom. Revenue decreased in our IT services business driven by lower volume on our health solutions programs, including less contact-center services work for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The group’s operating margin increased 30 basis points in 2016 driven primarily by improved operating performance. Operating earnings in 2015 included a gain of $23 on the sale of a commercial cyber security product business. Excluding the impact of this gain on the prior-year period, the group’s operating margin increased 50 basis points in 2016.
2018 Outlook
We expect the Information Systems and Technology group’s 2018 revenue to increase between 5 and 6% from 2017, with operating margin around 11%.
MARINE SYSTEMS
Review of 2017 vs. 2016
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
Variance
Revenue
$
8,004

 
$
8,072

 
$
(68
)
 
(0.8
)%
Operating earnings
685

 
595

 
90

 
15.1
 %
Operating margin
8.6
%
 
7.4
%
 
 
 
 
The change in the Marine Systems group’s revenue in 2017 consisted of the following:
Commercial ship construction
$
(253
)
U.S. Navy ship construction
(66
)
U.S. Navy ship engineering, repair and other services
251

Total decrease
$
(68
)
Revenue was down from Jones Act commercial ship construction following the delivery of six ships in 2016 and two ships in 2017. Revenue from U.S. Navy ship construction decreased due to timing on the Virginia-class submarine program offset partially by higher volume on the Navy’s Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) program. Revenue from U.S. Navy ship engineering, repair and other services increased in 2017 due primarily to additional work related to the Columbia-class submarine development program and Virginia-class submarine design enhancements, and a higher volume of submarine repair work.
The Marine Systems group’s operating margin increased 120 basis points due primarily to the 2016 impact of cost growth associated with the restart of the Navy’s DDG-51 program. The group’s operating margin was also affected favorably in 2017 by a decrease in lower-margin commercial ship work.

33



Review of 2016 vs. 2015
Year Ended December 31
2016
 
2015
 
Variance
Revenue
$
8,072

 
$
8,032

 
$
40

 
0.5
 %
Operating earnings
595

 
748

 
(153
)
 
(20.5
)%
Operating margin
7.4
%
 
9.3
%
 
 

 
 

Revenue increased in the Marine Systems group in 2016 due primarily to additional development work on the Columbia-class submarine program, offset partially by lower Jones Act commercial ship construction volume.
Operating margin decreased 190 basis points in 2016 due to the DDG-51 program cost growth discussed above. Additionally, operating earnings in 2015 benefited from favorable cost performance on Block III of the Virginia-class submarine program.
2018 Outlook
We expect the Marine Systems group’s 2018 revenue to increase between 5 and 6% from 2017. Operating margin is expected to be in the mid- to high-8% range.
CORPORATE
Corporate costs totaled $49 in 2017, $40 in 2016 and $41 in 2015 and consisted primarily of stock option expense. Corporate operating costs in 2018 will be impacted by the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2017-07 on January 1, 2018. ASU 2017-07 requires the non-service cost components of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost (e.g., interest cost) to be reported in other income (expense) in the income statement. In our three defense groups, pension and other post-retirement benefit costs are allocable contract costs. For these groups, we will report the adjustment for the non-service cost components in Corporate operating results. This amount will offset our stock option expense, resulting in expected Corporate operating costs in 2018 of essentially zero. For further discussion of the adoption of ASU 2017-07, see Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

OTHER INFORMATION
PRODUCT AND SERVICE REVENUE AND OPERATING COSTS
Review of 2017 vs. 2016
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
Variance
Revenue:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Products
$
19,016

 
$
19,010

 
$
6

 
 %
Services
11,957

 
11,551

 
406

 
3.5
 %
Operating Costs:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Products
$
14,799

 
$
15,159

 
$
(360
)
 
(2.4
)%
Services
9,987

 
9,746

 
241

 
2.5
 %

34



The increase in product revenue in 2017 consisted of the following:
Military vehicle production
$
261

Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
246

Ship construction
(310
)
C4ISR products
(173
)
Other, net
(18
)
Total increase
$
6

Military vehicle production revenue increased due to higher volume on the U.S. Army’s Abrams and Stryker programs and the ramp up in production on the AJAX and several international LAV programs. Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions revenue increased due to additional deliveries of the ultra-large-cabin G650 and mid-cabin G280 aircraft. These increases were offset largely by decreased ship construction revenue driven by timing on the Virginia-class submarine program and reduced Jones Act commercial ship construction volume, and decreased revenue from C4ISR products driven by funding delays caused by the extended FY 2017 CR.
While product revenue was steady in 2017, product operating costs decreased due to strong operating performance in our Aerospace and Information Systems and Technology groups and the impact of DDG-51 program cost growth in 2016 in our Marine Systems group.
The increase in service revenue in 2017 consisted of the following:
Ship engineering, repair and other services
$
243

Aircraft services
118

Other, net
45

Total increase
$
406

Revenue from ship engineering, repair and other services increased due primarily to additional work related to the Columbia-class submarine development program and Virginia-class submarine design enhancements, and a higher volume of submarine repair work. Aircraft services revenue increased driven by higher demand for maintenance work and the acquisition of an FBO in 2017.
Service operating costs increased in 2017 at a lower rate than revenue due primarily to strong operating performance in our Information Systems and Technology group.
Review of 2016 vs. 2015
Year Ended December 31
2016
 
2015
 
Variance
Revenue:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Products
$
19,010

 
$
20,477

 
$
(1,467
)
 
(7.2
)%
Services
11,551

 
11,304

 
247

 
2.2
 %
Operating Costs:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Products
$
15,159

 
$
15,986

 
$
(827
)
 
(5.2
)%
Services
9,746

 
9,563

 
183

 
1.9
 %

35



The change in product revenue in 2016 consisted of the following:
Aircraft manufacturing, outfitting and completions
$
(1,423
)
Ship construction
(225
)
C4ISR products
206

Other, net
(25
)
Total decrease
$
(1,467
)
Product revenue decreased due primarily to fewer G550 and G450 large-cabin and G280 mid-cabin aircraft deliveries, and decreased Jones Act commercial ship construction volume. Revenue from C4ISR products increased due primarily to higher volume on the WIN-T program. Product operating costs decreased at a lower rate than revenue declined in 2016 due to DDG-51 program cost growth in our Marine Systems group. Additionally, 2015 benefited from favorable cost performance on Block III of the Virginia-class submarine program in our Marine Systems group and a supplier settlement received in our Aerospace group.
The increase in service revenue in 2016 consisted of the following:
Ship engineering, repair and other services
$
264

Other, net
(17
)
Total increase
$
247

Service revenue increased due primarily to additional development work on the Columbia-class submarine program. Service operating costs increased in 2016 consistent with the higher volume described above.
G&A EXPENSES
As a percentage of revenue, G&A expenses were 6.5% in 2017, 6.3% in 2016 and 6.1% in 2015. We expect G&A expenses as a percentage of revenue in 2018 to be generally consistent with 2017.
INTEREST, NET
Net interest expense was $103 in 2017, $91 in 2016 and $83 in 2015. The increase in 2017 was due primarily to a $500 net increase in long-term debt beginning in the third quarter of 2016. We expect 2018 net interest expense to be approximately $115. The increase from 2017 is due primarily to slightly higher interest rates on the $1 billion of fixed-rate notes issued in 2017 compared with the $900 of fixed-rate notes that matured in 2017. See Note K to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for additional information regarding our debt obligations, including interest rates.
OTHER, NET
Net other income was $3 in 2017, $13 in 2016 and $7 in 2015. In 2018, we expect net other expense to be approximately $60 due primarily to the adoption of ASU 2017-07, which requires the non-service cost components of pension and other post-retirement benefit cost to be reported in other income (expense) in the income statement. For further discussion of the adoption of ASU 2017-07, see Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.

36



PROVISION FOR INCOME TAX, NET
Our effective tax rate was 28.6% in 2017, 26.7% in 2016 and 28% in 2015. The effective tax rate in 2017 includes a $119 unfavorable impact, or 290 basis points, resulting from the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on December 22, 2017 (tax reform). The primary impact of the change in tax law was the remeasurement of our U.S. federal deferred tax assets and liabilities at the tax rate expected to apply when the temporary differences are realized/settled (remeasured at a rate of 21% versus 35% for the majority of our deferred tax assets and liabilities). The decrease in the effective tax rate in 2016 was due to increased international activity, as well as excess tax benefits from equity-based compensation recognized as an income tax benefit in accordance with ASU 2016-09. We adopted ASU 2016-09 on a prospective basis beginning in 2016. For further discussion, including a reconciliation of our effective tax rate from the statutory federal rate, see Note F to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
For 2018, we anticipate a full-year effective tax rate of approximately 19%. The expected decrease from 2017 is due primarily to the reduction of the U.S. corporate statutory tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning on January 1, 2018, and the net impact of other tax reform provisions, notably a lower tax rate on income earned from foreign sales of U.S.-produced goods and services. However, the 2017 tax reform eliminated certain tax benefits under the prior tax law, including the domestic production deduction. Further, our non-U.S. businesses, which previously provided a benefit to our effective tax rate, operate in jurisdictions with statutory tax rates that are now similar to the U.S., and in some cases higher. For these reasons, while we continue to expect an effective tax rate slightly below the statutory rate, the difference between the rates is expected to narrow under the new tax law.
DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS, NET OF TAX
In 2013, we settled litigation with the U.S. Navy related to the terminated A-12 aircraft contract in the company’s former tactical military aircraft business. In connection with the settlement, we released some rights to reimbursement of costs on ships under contract at our Bath, Maine, shipyard. As we progressed through the shipbuilding process, we determined that the cost associated with this settlement was greater than anticipated. Therefore, in 2016, we recognized an $84 loss, net of tax, to adjust the previously-recognized settlement value. In addition, we recognized a $10 loss, net of tax, in 2016 related to an environmental matter associated with a former operation of the company.
In 2015, we completed the sale of our axle business in the Combat Systems group. In 2016, we recognized a final adjustment of $13 to the loss on the sale of this business.


37



BACKLOG AND ESTIMATED POTENTIAL CONTRACT VALUE
gd20171231chart-2.jpg
Our total backlog, including funded and unfunded portions, was $63.2 billion at the end of 2017, up 1.6% from $62.2 billion at the end of 2016. Our total backlog is equal to our remaining performance obligations under contracts that meet the criteria in ASC Topic 606 as discussed in Note B to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. Our total estimated contract value, which combines total backlog with estimated potential contract value, was $88 billion on December 31, 2017.

AEROSPACE
gd20171231chart-1.jpg
Aerospace funded backlog represents new aircraft and custom completion 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 group ended 2017 with backlog of $12.5 billion compared with $13.2 billion at year-end 2016.

38



Orders in 2017 reflected solid demand across our product and services portfolio with especially strong orders in the fourth quarter of 2017. The book-to-bill ratio (orders divided by revenue) was one-to-one for Gulfstream aircraft in 2017. We received orders for all models of in-production Gulfstream aircraft, as well as additional orders for the G500 and G600 aircraft.
Beyond total backlog, estimated potential contract value in the Aerospace group was $2 billion on December 31, 2017, down slightly from $2.1 billion at year-end 2016. Estimated potential contract value represents primarily options to purchase new aircraft and long-term aircraft services agreements.
Demand for Gulfstream aircraft remains strong across customer types and geographic regions, generating orders from public and privately held companies, individuals, and governments around the world. Geographically, U.S. customers represented 55% of the group’s orders in 2017 and approximately 45% of the group’s backlog on December 31, 2017, demonstrating continued strong domestic demand.

DEFENSE GROUPS
The total backlog in our three defense groups represents the estimated remaining sales value of work to be performed under firm contracts. The funded portion of this backlog includes items that have been authorized and appropriated by the U.S. Congress and funded by customers, as well as commitments by international customers that are approved and funded similarly by their governments. We have included in total backlog firm contracts at the amounts that we believe are likely to receive funding, but there is no guarantee that future budgets and appropriations will provide the same funding level currently anticipated for a given program.
Estimated potential contract value in our defense groups includes unexercised options associated with existing firm contracts and work awarded on unfunded indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Contract options in our defense business represent agreements to perform additional work under existing contracts at the election of the customer. We recognize options in backlog when the customer exercises the option and establishes a firm order. For IDIQ contracts, we evaluate the amount of funding we expect to receive and include this amount in our estimated potential contract value. This amount is often less than the total IDIQ contract value, particularly when the contract has multiple awardees. The actual amount of funding received in the future may be higher or lower than our estimate of potential contract value.
Total backlog in our defense groups was $50.7 billion on December 31, 2017, up 3.5% from $49 billion at the end of 2016, driven by a $5.1 billion contract awarded by the U.S. Navy to complete the design and prototype development of the Columbia-class submarine. Estimated potential contract value was $22.8 billion on December 31, 2017, compared with $22.9 billion at year-end 2016.

39



COMBAT SYSTEMS
gd20171231chart-3.jpg
The Combat Systems group’s total backlog was $17.6 billion at the end of 2017, down slightly from $17.8 billion at year-end 2016. The group’s backlog includes the amount of work remaining on two significant multi-year contracts awarded in 2014:
$5.9 billion to provide wheeled armored vehicles and logistics support to a Middle Eastern customer through 2024.
$4.1 billion from the U.K. Ministry of Defence to produce AJAX armoured fighting vehicles scheduled for delivery to the British Army through 2024 and related in-service support.
The group also has additional international military vehicle production contracts in backlog, notably:
$540 for LAVs for several non-U.S. customers, including $350 for the upgrade and modernization of LAV III combat vehicles for the Canadian Army.
$430 to produce over 300 armored personnel carriers for the Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization.
$355 to upgrade Duro tactical vehicles for the Swiss government through 2022.
$190 to produce Piranha 3+ vehicles in five variants and provide associated program support for an international customer.
The group received $1.9 billion of orders for Abrams main battle tank modernization and upgrade programs for the Army and U.S. allies in 2017, ending the year with backlog of $2.1 billion. For the Army, backlog included $620 to produce M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, deliver M1A2 SEP components, and provide associated program support, and $365 to design and develop SEPv4 prototypes with upgraded sensors. For U.S. allies, backlog included $825 to modernize Abrams main battle tanks for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. An additional $870 for Abrams tank programs is included in our estimated potential contract value at year-end.
The U.S. Army’s Stryker wheeled combat-vehicle program represented $510 of the group’s backlog on December 31, 2017, with vehicles scheduled for delivery through 2019. The group received $500 of Stryker orders in 2017, including awards to produce double-V-hull vehicles, upgrade vehicles with an integrated 30-millimeter cannon and provide support and engineering services.

40



The Combat Systems group’s backlog on December 31, 2017, also included $2.6 billion for multiple weapons systems and munitions programs, including $360 to produce Hydra-70 rockets for the Army.
The group’s estimated potential contract value was $3.2 billion on December 31, 2017, compared with $4.7 billion at year-end 2016. Estimated potential contract value decreased in 2017 due to a customer-directed restructuring of a combat-vehicle contract in the Middle East.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY
gd20171231chart-5.jpg
Unlike our other defense businesses, the Information Systems and Technology group’s backlog consists of thousands of contracts and is reconstituted each year with new programs and task order awards. The group’s total backlog was $8.9 billion at the end of 2017, up 4.8% from $8.5 billion at year-end 2016. This amount does not include $14.9 billion of estimated potential contract value associated with its anticipated share of IDIQ contracts and unexercised options on December 31, 2017. Funding of IDIQ contracts and options added $4.6 billion to the group’s backlog in 2017, over 50% of the group’s orders.
In 2017, the group achieved a book-to-bill ratio of one-to-one or higher for the fourth consecutive year driven by several significant contract awards during the year, including the following:
$590 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for contact center services and cloud hosting support, with $275 remaining in backlog at year-end 2017.
$415 from the U.K. Ministry of Defence to design and develop the next-generation tactical communication and information system in the initial phase of the U.K.’s Morpheus program.
$310 from the U.S. Army for computing and communications equipment under the CHS-4 program. $340 of estimated potential contract value remains under this IDIQ contract.
The group’s backlog at year-end 2017 also included the following key programs:
$815 for the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Project (MHP) to provide integrated mission systems, training and support for Canadian marine helicopters.

41



$445 of support and modernization work for the intelligence community, the DoD and the Department of Homeland Security, including the New Campus East, U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center, Enterprise Transport and St. Elizabeths campus infrastructure programs.
$415 for combat and seaframe control systems for U.S. Navy Independence-variant Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).
$320 for the WIN-T mobile communications network program. The group received $305 of orders in 2017 for additional Increment 2 equipment.
$300 to provide supply chain management services to the U.S. Department of State.
$260 to provide fire control system modifications for ballistic-missile (SSBN) submarines.
$200 for long-term support and capability upgrades for the U.K.’s Bowman tactical communication system.
MARINE SYSTEMS 
gd20171231chart-6.jpg
The Marine Systems group’s backlog consists of long-term submarine and surface ship construction programs, as well as numerous engineering and repair contracts. The group’s book-to-bill ratio exceeded one-to-one in 2017, resulting in backlog growth of 6.6% from $22.7 billion at year-end 2016 to $24.2 billion at the end of 2017.
The Virginia-class submarine program was the company’s largest program in 2017 and the largest contract in the company’s backlog. The group’s backlog at year-end 2017 included $11.2 billion for 13 Virginia-class submarines scheduled for delivery through 2023.
Navy destroyer programs represented $4 billion of the group’s backlog at year-end 2017. We have construction contracts for seven DDG-51 destroyers scheduled for delivery through 2024. Backlog at year-end 2017 also included two ships under the DDG-1000 program scheduled for delivery in 2018 and 2020, respectively.
The Marine Systems group’s backlog on December 31, 2017, included $245 for construction of ESB auxiliary support ships. The group has delivered three ships in the program, and construction is underway on the fourth and fifth ships, scheduled for delivery in early 2018 and 2019, respectively.

42



In 2016, we were awarded a design and construction contract for the lead ship in the Navy’s new class of fleet oilers, the John Lewis class (TAO-205), along with options for five additional ships. At year-end 2017, backlog included $670 for the program, and estimated potential contract value included $2.2 billion for the options.
The year-end backlog also included two liquefied natural gas (LNG)-capable Jones Act ships for a commercial customer scheduled for delivery through 2020.
Complementing these ship construction programs, engineering services represented approximately $6.5 billion of the Marine Systems group’s backlog on December 31, 2017. Design and development efforts on the Columbia-class submarine program represented $5.3 billion of this amount, driven by $5.1 billion awarded in 2017 to complete the design and prototype development of the Columbia-class submarine. An additional $1.2 billion is included in our estimated potential contract value at year end, representing materials to be provisioned on the contract.
Year-end backlog for ship and submarine maintenance, repair and other services totaled $1.1 billion, including $780 for surface-ship repair operations.

FINANCIAL CONDITION, LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
We place a strong emphasis on cash flow generation. This focus gives us the flexibility for capital deployment while preserving a strong balance sheet to position us for future opportunities. Cash generated by operating activities over the past three years was deployed to pay dividends, fund capital expenditures and business acquisitions, and repurchase our common stock.
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
3,879

 
$
2,198

 
$
2,607

Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
(791
)
 
(426
)
 
200

Net cash used by financing activities
(2,399
)
 
(2,169
)
 
(4,367
)
Net cash used by discontinued operations
(40
)
 
(54
)
 
(43
)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and equivalents
649

 
(451
)
 
(1,603
)
Cash and equivalents at beginning of year
2,334

 
2,785

 
4,388

Cash and equivalents at end of year
2,983

 
2,334

 
2,785

Short- and long-term debt
(3,982
)
 
(3,888
)
 
(3,399
)
Net debt
$
(999
)
 
$
(1,554
)
 
$
(614
)
Debt-to-equity (a)
34.8
%
 
37.7
%
 
32.6
%
Debt-to-capital (b)
25.8
%
 
27.4
%
 
24.6
%
(a)
Debt-to-equity ratio is calculated as total debt divided by total equity as of year end.
(b)
Debt-to-capital ratio is calculated as total debt divided by the sum of total debt plus total equity as of year end.
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 in Item 8.


43



OPERATING ACTIVITIES
We generated cash from operating activities of $3.9 billion in 2017, $2.2 billion in 2016 and $2.6 billion in 2015. The primary driver of cash flows was net earnings. Cash flows in 2016 and 2015 were affected negatively by growth in operating working capital in our Combat Systems group due to the utilization of deposits and the timing of billings on a large contract for a Middle Eastern customer, and in our Aerospace group from the build-up of inventory related to the new G500 and G600 aircraft programs and the liquidation of customer deposits associated with aircraft deliveries. In 2017, the growth in operating working capital due to these factors slowed and was offset by lower income tax payments.

INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Cash used for investing activities was $791 in 2017 compared with cash used for investing activities of $426 in 2016 and cash provided by investing activities of $200 in 2015. Our investing activities include cash paid for capital expenditures and business acquisitions; purchases, sales and maturities of marketable securities; and proceeds from asset sales.
Capital Expenditures. The primary use of cash for investing activities in all three years was capital expenditures. Capital expenditures were $428 in 2017, $392 in 2016 and $569 in 2015. We expect capital expenditures of around 2% of revenue in 2018.
Business Acquisitions. In 2017, we acquired four businesses for an aggregate of $399. In 2016, we acquired two businesses for an aggregate of $58. We did not acquire any businesses in 2015.
Marketable Securities. In 2015, we received $500 of proceeds from maturing held-to-maturity securities purchased in 2014. Other net purchases, sales and maturities of marketable securities in all three years were not material.
Other, Net. Investing activities also include proceeds from asset sales. In 2015, we completed the sale of our axle business in the Combat Systems group and a commercial cyber security business in our Information Systems and Technology group.

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash used for financing activities was $2.4 billion in 2017, $2.2 billion in 2016 and $4.4 billion in 2015. Our financing activities include repurchases of common stock, payment of dividends and debt repayments. Net cash from financing activities also includes proceeds received from debt issuances and employee stock option exercises.
Share Repurchases. Our board of directors authorizes management’s repurchase of outstanding shares of our common stock on the open market from time to time. We repurchased 7.8 million of our outstanding shares for $1.5 billion in 2017, 14.2 million shares for $2 billion in 2016 and 22.8 million shares for $3.2 billion in 2015. As a result, we have reduced our shares outstanding by approximately 11% since the end of 2014. On December 31, 2017, 7.6 million shares remained authorized by our board of directors for repurchase, approximately 3% of our total shares outstanding.
Dividends. On March 1, 2017, our board of directors declared an increased quarterly dividend of $0.84 per share, the 20th consecutive annual increase. Previously, the board had increased the quarterly dividend to $0.76 per share in March 2016 and $0.69 per share in March 2015. Cash dividends paid were $986 in 2017, $911 in 2016 and $873 in 2015.

44



Debt Issuances and Repayments. We issued $1 billion of fixed-rate notes in the third quarter of 2017, and we used the proceeds to repay $900 of fixed-rate notes that matured in the fourth quarter of 2017 and for general corporate purposes. In 2016, we repaid $500 of fixed-rate notes on their maturity date with cash on hand and issued $1 billion of fixed-rate notes for general corporate purposes. In 2015, we repaid $500 of fixed-rate notes on their scheduled maturity date with the proceeds from maturing marketable securities.
We have no additional material repayments of long-term debt scheduled until 2021. See Note K to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for additional information regarding our debt obligations, including scheduled debt maturities and interest rates.
On December 31, 2017, we had no commercial paper outstanding, but we maintain the ability to access the commercial paper market in the future. We have $2 billion in committed bank credit facilities for general corporate purposes and working capital needs. These credit facilities include a $1 billion multi-year facility expiring in July 2018 and a $1 billion multi-year facility expiring in November 2020. We may renew or replace these credit facilities in whole or in part at or prior to their expiration dates. We also have an effective shelf registration on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission that allows us to access the debt markets.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
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 from operations and ROIC to measure our performance in these areas. While we believe these metrics provide useful information, they are not defined 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 businesses 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 key 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 Statement of Cash Flows:
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014*
 
2013*
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
3,879

 
$
2,198

 
$
2,607

 
$
3,828

 
$
3,159

Capital expenditures
(428
)
 
(392
)
 
(569
)
 
(521
)
 
(436
)
Free cash flow from operations
$
3,451

 
$
1,806

 
$
2,038

 
$
3,307

 
$
2,723

Cash flows as a percentage of earnings
   from continuing operations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Net cash provided by operating activities
133
%
 
82
%
 
86
%
 
143
%
 
127
%
   Free cash flow from operations
119
%
 
67
%
 
67
%
 
124
%
 
110
%
* Prior-period information for 2014 and 2013 has not been restated for ASC Topic 606 and is, therefore, not comparable to the 2017, 2016 and 2015 information.

45



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 average invested capital. Net operating profit after taxes is defined as earnings from continuing operations plus after-tax interest and amortization expense. Average invested capital is defined as the sum of the average debt and shareholders’ equity excluding accumulated other comprehensive loss. ROIC excludes goodwill impairments and non-economic accounting changes as they are not reflective of company performance.
ROIC is calculated as follows:
Year Ended December 31
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014*
 
2013*
Earnings from continuing operations
$
2,912

 
$
2,679

 
$
3,036

 
$
2,673

 
$
2,486

After-tax interest expense
76

 
64

 
64

 
67

 
67

After-tax amortization expense
51

 
57

 
75

 
79

 
93

Net operating profit after taxes
$
3,039

 
$
2,800

 
$
3,175

 
$
2,819

 
$
2,646

Average invested capital
$
18,099

 
$
17,168

 
$
17,579

 
$
18,673

 
$
18,741

Return on invested capital
16.8
%
 
16.3
%
 
18.1
%
 
15.1
%
 
14.1
%
* Prior-period information for 2014 and 2013 has not been restated for ASC Topic 606 and is, therefore, not comparable to the 2017, 2016 and 2015 information.

ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
On December 31, 2017, 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, 2017:
 
 
 
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)
$
5,029

 
$
112

 
$
215

 
$
1,696

 
$
3,006

Capital lease obligations
27

 
2

 
4

 
4

 
17

Operating leases
1,359

 
258

 
363

 
212

 
526

Purchase obligations (b)
25,168

 
13,806

 
8,594

 
1,983

 
785

Other long-term liabilities (c)
21,428

 
4,632

 
2,677

 
1,864

 
12,255

 
$
53,011

 
$
18,810

 
$
11,853

 
$
5,759

 
$
16,589

(a)Includes scheduled interest payments. See Note K to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for a 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 $17.1 billion of purchase obligations for products and services to be delivered under firm government contracts under which we would expect 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 Q to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding these liabilities and the plan assets available to satisfy them.

46



 
 
 
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*
$
1,200

 
$
585

 
$
309

 
$
171

 
$
135

Aircraft trade-in options*
161

 
128

 
33

 

 

 
$
1,361

 
$
713

 
$
342

 
$
171

 
$
135

* See Note O to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for a discussion of letters of credit and aircraft trade-in options.

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 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 revenue and expenses during the reporting 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 intangible assets, income taxes, pension 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, currently available information and various other assumptions that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances. 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 our judgment is applied consistently and produces financial information that fairly depicts the results of operations for all periods presented.
In our opinion, the following policies are critical and require the use of significant judgment in their application:
Revenue. The majority of our revenue is derived from long-term contracts and programs that can span several years. We account for revenue in accordance with ASC Topic 606. The unit of account in ASC Topic 606 is a performance obligation. A contract’s transaction price is allocated to each distinct performance obligation and recognized as revenue when, or as, the performance obligation is satisfied. Our performance obligations are satisfied over time as work progresses or at a point in time.
Substantially all of our revenue in the defense groups is recognized over time, because control is transferred continuously to our customers. Typically, revenue is recognized over time using costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs at completion to measure progress toward satisfying our performance obligations. Incurred cost represents work performed, which corresponds with, and thereby best depicts, the transfer of control to the customer. Contract costs include labor, material, overhead and, when appropriate, G&A expenses.
The majority of our revenue recognized at a point in time is for the manufacture of business-jet aircraft in our Aerospace group. Revenue on these contracts is recognized when the customer obtains control of the asset, which is generally upon delivery and acceptance by the customer of the fully outfitted aircraft.
Accounting for long-term contracts and programs involves the use of various techniques to estimate total contract revenue and costs. For long-term contracts, we estimate the profit on a contract as the difference

47



between the total estimated revenue and expected costs to complete a contract and recognize that profit over the life of the contract.
Contract estimates are based on various assumptions 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.
The nature of our contracts gives rise to several types of variable consideration, including claims and award and incentive fees. We include in our contract estimates additional revenue for submitted contract modifications or claims against the customer when we believe we have an enforceable right to the modification or claim, 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 transaction price when there is a basis to reasonably estimate the amount of the fee. These estimates are based on historical award experience, anticipated performance and our best judgment at the time. Because of our certainty in estimating these amounts, they are included in the transaction price of our contracts and the associated remaining performance obligations.
As a significant change in one or more of these estimates could affect the profitability of our contracts, we review and update our contract-related estimates regularly. We recognize adjustments in estimated profit on contracts under the cumulative catch-up method. Under this method, the impact of the adjustment on profit recorded to date on a contract is recognized in the period the adjustment is identified. Revenue and profit in future periods of contract performance are recognized using the adjusted estimate. The aggregate impact of adjustments in contract estimates increased our operating earnings (and diluted earnings per share) by $323 ($0.69) in 2017, $16 ($0.03) in 2016 and $271 ($0.54) in 2015. While no adjustment on any one contract was material to our Consolidated Financial Statements in 2017, 2016 or 2015, the amount in 2016 was negatively impacted by a loss on the design and development phase of the AJAX program in our Combat Systems group and cost growth associated with the restart of the Navy’s DDG-51 program in our Marine Systems group.
Consistent with industry practice, we classify assets and liabilities related to long-term contracts as current, even though some of these amounts may not be realized within one year. The timing of revenue recognition, billings and cash collections results in billed accounts receivable, unbilled receivables (contract assets), and customer advances and deposits (contract liabilities) on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. These assets and liabilities are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheet on a contract-by-contract basis at the end of each reporting period.
Long-lived Assets and Goodwill. We review long-lived assets, including intangible assets subject to amortization, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the asset may not be recoverable. We assess the recoverability of the carrying value of assets held for use based on a review of undiscounted projected cash flows. Impairment losses, where identified, are measured as the excess of the carrying value of the long-lived asset over its estimated fair value as determined by discounted projected cash flows.
Goodwill represents the purchase price paid in excess of the fair value of net tangible and intangible assets acquired. We review goodwill for impairment annually or 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

48



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 based primarily 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 estimates 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 market capitalization over the sum of the reporting units’ fair values). Additionally, we evaluate the reasonableness of each reporting unit’s fair value by comparing the fair value to comparable peer companies and recent comparable market transactions.
We completed the required annual goodwill impairment test as of December 31, 2017. The first step of the goodwill impairment test compares the fair value of each of our reporting units to its carrying value. Our reporting units are consistent with our business groups. The estimated fair value of each of our reporting units was well in excess of its respective carrying value as of December 31, 2017.
Commitments and Contingencies. We are subject to litigation and other legal proceedings arising either from the normal course of 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.
Other Contract Costs. Other contract costs represent amounts that are not currently allocable to government contracts, such as 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 these costs in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet 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. 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 several assumptions and estimates. The key assumptions include interest rates used to discount estimated future liabilities and projected long-term rates of return on plan assets. We base the discount rates on a current yield curve developed from a portfolio of high-quality, fixed-income investments with maturities consistent with the projected benefit payout period. Beginning in 2016, we refined the method used to determine the service and interest cost components of our net annual benefit cost. Previously, the cost was determined using a single weighted-average discount rate derived from the yield curve described above. Under the refined method, known as the spot rate approach, we use individual spot rates along the yield curve that correspond with the timing of each service cost and discounted benefit obligation payment. We believe this change provides a more precise measurement of service and interest costs by improving the correlation between projected service cost and discounted benefit obligation cash outflows and

49



corresponding spot rates on the yield curve. We accounted for this change prospectively as a change in accounting estimate.
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. In 2017, we decreased the expected long-term rate of return on assets in our primary U.S. government and commercial pension plans by 75 basis points following an assessment of the historical and expected long-term returns of our various asset classes.
These retirement plan assumptions are based on our best judgment, including consideration of current and future market conditions. In the event any of the assumptions change, pension and other post-retirement benefit cost could increase or decrease. For further discussion, including the impact of hypothetical changes in the discount rate and expected long-term rate of return on plan assets, see Note Q to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8.
As discussed under Other 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 until such costs can be allocated to contracts. Therefore, the impact of annual changes in financial reporting assumptions on the retirement benefit cost for these plans does not immediately affect our operating results.
Accounting Standards Updates. See Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for information regarding accounting standards we adopted in 2017 and other new accounting standards that have been issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) but are not effective until after December 31, 2017.


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 N to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 for a discussion of these risks. The following quantifies the market risk exposure arising from hypothetical changes in foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates.
We had notional forward exchange contracts outstanding of $4.3 billion on December 31, 2017, and $6.3 billion on December 31, 2016.
In 2017, we changed our method for calculating the hypothetical, incremental pretax gains (losses) to measure the net gains (losses) for each currency pair across our portfolio of forward exchange contracts (e.g., Canadian dollar/U.S. dollar), rather than measure the gains (losses) on a contract-by-contract basis. The underlying portfolio and the associated exchange-rate risk have not changed. We restated the 2016 amount under the new method to provide comparability between 2017 and 2016.
A 10% unfavorable exchange rate movement in our portfolio of forward exchange contracts would have resulted in the following hypothetical, incremental pretax gains (losses):
(Dollars in millions)
2017
 
2016
Recognized
$
(29
)
 
$
(19
)
Unrecognized
33

 
18

Foreign Currency. Our exchange-rate sensitivity relates primarily to changes in the Canadian dollar, euro and British pound exchange rates. These losses would be offset by corresponding gains in the remeasurement of the underlying transactions being hedged. We believe these foreign currency 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, 2017, we had $4 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% unfavorable interest rate movement would not have a material impact on the fair value of our debt obligations.
Investment Risk. 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, 2017, we held $3 billion in cash and equivalents, but held no marketable securities other than those held in trust to meet some of our obligations under workers’ compensation and non-qualified supplemental executive retirement plans. On December 31, 2017, these marketable securities totaled $191 and were reflected at fair value on our Consolidated Balance Sheet in other current and noncurrent assets.
 

51



ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Prior-period information has been restated for the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, and Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2015-07, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, which we adopted on January 1, 2017, as discussed in Note T.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS

 
Year Ended December 31
(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts)
2017
 
2016
 
2015
Revenue:
 
 
 
 
 
Products
$
19,016

 
$
19,010

 
$
20,477

Services
11,957

 
11,551

 
11,304

 
30,973

 
30,561

 
31,781

Operating costs and expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
Products
14,799

 
15,159

 
15,986

Services
9,987

 
9,746

 
9,563

General and administrative (G&A)
2,010

 
1,922

 
1,937

 
26,796

 
26,827

 
27,486

Operating earnings
4,177

 
3,734

 
4,295

Interest, net
(103
)
 
(91
)
 
(83
)
Other, net
3

 
13

 
7

Earnings from continuing operations before income tax
4,077

 
3,656

 
4,219

Provision for income tax, net
1,165

 
977

 
1,183

Earnings from continuing operations
2,912

 
2,679

 
3,036

Discontinued operations, net of tax benefit of $51 in 2016 and $7 in 2015

 
(107
)
 

Net earnings
$
2,912

 
$
2,572

 
$
3,036

 
 
 
 
 
 
Earnings per share
 
 
 
 
 
Basic:
 
 
 
 
 
Continuing operations
$
9.73

 
$
8.79

 
$
9.45

Discontinued operations

 
(0.35
)
 

Net earnings
$
9.73

 
$
8.44