LMT, §1A diff (2021 → 2022)

An investment in our common stock or debt securities involves risks and uncertainties. We seek to identify, manage and mitigate risks to our business, but risk and uncertainty cannot be eliminated or necessarily predicted. The outcome of one or more of these risks could have a material effect on our operating results, financial position, or cash flows. You should carefully consider the following factors, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before deciding to purchase our common stock or debt securities.

We derived 71% of our total consolidated net sales from the U.S. Government in 2021, including 62% from the DoD. We expect to continue to derive most of our sales from work performed under U.S. Government contracts. Those contracts are conditioned upon the continuing availability of Congressional appropriations. Congress usually appropriates funds on a fiscal year (FY) basis even though contract performance may extend over many years. Consequently, contracts are often partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations over time. If we incur costs in excess of funds obligated on a contract or in advance of a contract award, we may be at risk of not being reimbursed for those costs unless and until additional funds are obligated under the contract or the contract is awarded and funded.

Budget uncertainty, the risk of future budget cuts, the potential for U.S. Government shutdowns, the use of continuing resolutions, and the federal debt ceiling can adversely affect our industry and the funding for our programs. If appropriations were delayed or a government shutdown were to occur and were to continue for an extended period of time, we could be at risk of program cancellations and other disruptions and nonpayment. When the U.S. Government operates under a continuing resolution, new contract and program starts are restricted and funding for our programs may be unavailable, reduced or delayed. Shifting funding priorities or federal budget compromises, could also result in reductions in overall defense spending on an absolute or inflation-adjusted basis, which could adversely impact our business. Our business could also be adversely impacted by reductions or delays in spending by non-U.S. government customers who are facing budget pressures.

We believe our diverse range of products and services generally make it less likely that cuts in any specific contract or program will affect our business on a long-term basis. However, termination of multiple or large programs or contracts could adversely affect our business and future financial performance. Changes in funding priorities could also reduce opportunities in existing programs and in future programs where we intend to compete. While we would expect to compete and be well positioned as the incumbent on existing programs, we may not be successful and, even if we are successful, the replacement programs may be funded at lower levels. In addition, our ability to grow in key areas such as hypersonics programs, classified programs and next-generation franchise programs will also be affected by the overall budget environment, whether development programs transition to production and the timing of such transition, all of which are dependent on U.S. Government authorization and funding.

The F-35 program comprises a material portion of our revenue and reductions in funding for this program and risks related to the development, production, sustainment, performance, schedule, cost and requirements of the program could adversely affect our performance.

The F-35 program, which consists of multiple development, production and sustainment contracts, is our largest program and represented 27% of our total consolidated net sales in 2021. A decision by the U.S. Government or other governments to cut spending on this program or reduce or delay planned orders would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations. Given the size and complexity of the F-35 program, we anticipate that there will be continual reviews related to aircraft performance, program schedule, cost, and requirements as part of the DoD, Congressional, and international countries’ oversight and budgeting processes. Current program challenges include supplier, Lockheed Martin and partner performance (including COVID-19 performance-related challenges), software development, the receipt of funding for contracts on a timely basis, execution of future flight tests and findings resulting from testing and operating the aircraft, the level of cost associated with life cycle operations, sustainment and potential contractual obligations, and the ability to continue to reduce the unit production costs and improve affordability.

Our planned production rates and deliveries have been affected and could continue to be affected by COVID-19 or supplier delays which affect our results of operations. We also may not be successful in making hardware and software upgrades and other modernization capabilities in a timely manner, including as a result of dependencies on suppliers, which could increase costs and create schedule delays. Our ability to capture and retain future F-35 growth in development, production and sustainment is dependent on the success of our efforts to achieve F-35 sustainment performance, customer affordability, supply chain improvements, continued reliability improvements and other efficiencies, some of which are outside our control.

We are subject to procurement laws and regulations, including those that enable the U.S. Government to terminate contracts for convenience. Our business and reputation could be adversely affected if we or those we do business with fail to comply with these laws.

We must comply with laws and regulations relating to the award, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts. Government contract laws and regulations affect how we do business with our customers and impose certain risks and costs on our business. A violation of these laws and regulations by us, our employees, others working on our behalf, a supplier or a joint venture partner could harm our reputation and result in the imposition of fines and penalties, the termination of our contracts, suspension or debarment from bidding on or being awarded contracts, loss of our ability to export products or perform services and civil or criminal investigations or proceedings. In addition, costs to comply with new government regulations can increase our costs, reduce our margins and affect our competitiveness.

Government contract laws and regulations can impose terms or obligations that are different than those typically found in commercial transactions. For example, the U.S. Government may terminate any of our government contracts and subcontracts not only for default based on our performance but also at its convenience. Upon termination for convenience of a fixed-price type contract, typically we are entitled to receive the purchase price for delivered items, reimbursement for allowable costs for work-in-process and an allowance for profit on the contract or adjustment for loss if completion of performance would have resulted in a loss. Upon termination for convenience of a cost-reimbursable contract, we normally are entitled to reimbursement of allowable costs plus a portion of the fee, and allowable costs include our cost to terminate agreements with our suppliers and subcontractors. Programs occasionally do not have sufficient funds appropriated to cover the termination costs if the government were to terminate them for convenience. Under such circumstances, the U.S. Government could assert that it is not required to appropriate additional funding.

A termination arising out of our default may expose us to liability and have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. In addition, the U.S. Government could terminate a prime contract under which we are a subcontractor, notwithstanding the fact that our performance and the quality of the products or services we delivered were consistent with our contractual obligations as a subcontractor. In the case of termination for default, the U.S. Government could make claims to reduce the contract value or recover its procurement costs and could assess other special penalties.

Our programs for the U.S. Government often operate for periods of time under Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs), which means that we begin performing our obligations before the terms, specifications or price are finally agreed to between the parties. The U.S. Government has (and has exercised in the past) the ability to unilaterally definitize contracts, which, absent a successful appeal, obligates us to perform under terms and conditions imposed by the U.S. Government. This can affect our ability to negotiate mutually agreeable contract terms and, if a contract is unilaterally imposed upon us, it may negatively affect our expected profit and cash flows on a program or impose burdensome terms.

Certain of our U.S. Government contracts span one or more base years and include multiple option years. The U.S. Government may decide not to exercise option periods, which could result in a loss of expected sales or profits. The U.S. Government also may decide to exercise option periods for contracts under which it is expected that our costs may exceed the contract price or ceiling, which could result in losses or unreimbursed costs.

Evolving U.S. Government procurement policies, increased emphasis on cost over performance and rapid acquisition initiatives could adversely affect our business.

The U.S. Government could implement procurement policies that negatively impact our profitability or the ability to win new business. Changes in procurement policy favoring more incentive-based fee arrangements, different award fee criteria or government contract negotiation offers based upon the customer’s view of what our costs should be (as compared to our actual costs) may affect the predictability of our profit rates or make it more difficult to compete on certain types of programs. In addition, changes in contract financing policy for fixed-price contracts, such as changes in performance and progress payments policies, including a reversal or modification of the DoD’s March 2020 increase to the applicable progress payment rate from 80% to 90%, could significantly affect the timing of our cash flows. Our customers also may seek to negotiate non-traditional contract provisions or contract types. The U.S. Government’s preference for fixed-price contracting has resulted in what we believe to be the inappropriate application of fixed-priced contracting methods to development programs. By their nature, the

technical challenges, costs and timing of development programs are difficult to estimate and the use of fixed-price instead of cost-reimbursable contracts for such programs increases the financial risk to the contractor. This has resulted in losses on certain fixed-price development programs and could result in additional losses in the future. In addition, an increased number of contract solicitations require the contractor to bid upfront on cost-reimbursable development work and the follow-on fixed-price production options in one submission. This requirement increases the risk that we may experience lower margins than expected, or a loss, on the production options because we must estimate the cost of producing a product before it has been developed. These risks may cause us not to bid on certain future programs, which could adversely affect our future growth prospects and financial performance. See Note 1 – Organization and Significant Accounting Policies included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further details about losses incurred on certain programs, including fixed-price development programs. In addition, given the customer’s emphasis on cost, even if we effectively manage program life-cycle and sustainment costs and meet customer affordability targets, the customer may elect to recompete programs at the end of existing contracts, which may result in a lost business opportunity or reduce operating margins. From time to time, the U.S. Government also has proposed contract terms, imposed internal policies, or taken positions that represent fundamental changes from historical practices or that we believe are inconsistent with the FAR or other laws and regulations and which could adversely affect our business.

The DoD is increasingly pursuing rapid acquisition pathways and procedures for new technologies, including through so called “other transaction authority” agreements (OTAs). While OTAs do not currently represent a significant portion of our overall contracts (less than 2% of total backlog), in recent years the DoD has increased the frequency of use and the size of OTAs and we expect this trend to continue. OTAs are exempt from many traditional procurement laws, including the FAR, and may be used, subject to certain conditions, for research, prototype development and follow-on production for a successful prototype. The conditions to award OTAs include, in certain instances, that a significant portion of the work under the OTA is performed by a non-traditional defense contractor or that a portion of the cost of the protype project is funded by non-governmental sources. If we cannot successfully adapt to the DoD’s rapid acquisition processes or if the DoD significantly increases the use of OTAs with non-traditional defense contractors or increasingly mandates cost sharing, then we may lose strategic new business opportunities in high-growth areas and our future performance and results could be adversely affected. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to identify technological innovation and adapt it to our platforms in light of changes in procurement policies that emphasize acquiring technologies with shorter life cycles.

Our profitability and cash flow may vary materially depending on the types of government contracts undertaken, the nature of products produced or services performed under those contracts, the costs incurred in performing the work, the achievement of other performance objectives and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees is determined, particularly under award and incentive-fee contracts. Failure to perform to customer expectations and contract requirements may result in reduced fees or losses and may adversely affect our financial performance. Our backlog includes a variety of contract types and represents the sales we expect to recognize for our products and services in the future. In addition, a significant portion of our contracts are classified by the U.S. Government, which impose security requirements that limit our ability to discuss our performance on these contracts, including any specific risks, disputes and claims.

Contract types primarily include fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contracts. Under each type of contract, if we are unable to control costs, including due to greater than anticipated inflation or unexpected delays, our operating results could be adversely affected, particularly if we are unable to demonstrate an increase in contract value to our customers. Cost overruns or the failure to perform on existing programs also may adversely affect our ability to retain existing programs and win future contract awards, or could cause the customer to terminate the contract for convenience. Given broader inflation in the economy, we are monitoring the risk inflation presents to active and future contracts. To date we have not seen broad based increases in costs from inflation that are material to the business as a whole; however, if we began to experience greater than expected supply chain and labor inflation our profits and margins under our contracts, in particular fixed price contracts, could be adversely affected.

Under fixed-price contracts, we agree to perform specified work for a pre-determined price. If our actual costs exceed our estimates our profits are reduced and we could incur a loss. Some fixed-price contracts have a performance-based component under which we may earn incentive payments or incur financial penalties based on our performance. For additional risks related to the DoD’s current use of fixed-price contracts see the risk factor above. See Note 1 – Organization and Significant Accounting Policies included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further details about losses incurred on certain fixed-price programs to date. Cost-reimbursable contracts provide for the payment of allowable costs incurred during performance of the contract plus a fee up to a ceiling based on the amount that has been funded. Contracts for development programs with complex design and technical challenges are often cost-reimbursable. In these cases, the associated financial risks primarily relate to a reduction in fees and potential program cancellation if cost, schedule or technical performance issues

13

arise. Our backlog also includes contracts for the transition from development to production (e.g., low rate initial production (LRIP) contracts), where the challenge of starting and stabilizing a manufacturing production and test line while the final design is being validated and managing change in requirements or capabilities create performance and financial risks to our business. These contracts frequently are cost-reimbursable or fixed-price incentive-fee contracts. Generally, if our costs exceed the contract target cost or are not allowable under the applicable regulations, we may not be able to obtain reimbursement for all costs and may have our fees reduced or eliminated. There are also contracts for production, as well as operations and maintenance of the delivered products, that have the challenge of achieving a stable production and delivery rate, while maintaining operability of the product after delivery. These contracts are primarily fixed-price. In addition, certain contracts associated with our Space business segment contain provisions that require us to forfeit fees, pay penalties, or provide replacement systems in the event of performance failure, which could negatively affect our earnings and cash flows.

U.S. Government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency and various agency Inspectors General, routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, its cost structure, its business systems and its compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. The U.S. Government has the ability to decrease or withhold certain payments when it deems systems subject to its review to be inadequate. Additionally, any costs found to be misclassified may be subject to repayment and from time to time we have had substantial disagreements with government auditors regarding the allowability of costs incurred by us under government contracts, which delays payments even if we are correct in our positions. We have unaudited or unsettled incurred cost claims related to past years, which limits our ability to issue final billings on contracts for which authorized and appropriated funds may be expiring or can result in delays in final billings and our ability to close out a contract.

If an audit or investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including reductions of the value of contracts, contract modifications or terminations, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, penalties, fines, suspension, or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. Government. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us. Similar government oversight and risks to our business and reputation exist in most other countries where we conduct business.

A substantial portion of our business is awarded through competitive bidding. The U.S. Government increasingly has relied on competitive contract award types, including indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity and other multi-award contracts, which have the potential to create pricing pressure and to increase our costs by requiring us to submit multiple bids and proposals. Multi-award contracts require us to make sustained efforts to obtain task orders under the contract. Additionally, competitive bids that do not contain cost-realism evaluation criteria can lead to competitors taking aggressive pricing positions. The U.S. Government also may not award us large competitive contracts that we otherwise might have won in an effort to maintain a broader industrial base.

We may encounter bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards seeking to overturn the award. Unsuccessful bidders also may protest with the goal of being awarded a subcontract for a portion of the work in return for withdrawing the protest. Bid protests can result in significant expenses to us, contract modifications or even loss of the contract award and the resolution can extend the time until contract activity can begin and delay the recognition of sales. Our efforts to protest or challenge any bids for contracts that were not awarded to us also may be unsuccessful and could result in our incurrence of significant expense.

We are facing increased competition from emerging competitors, including startups and non-traditional defense contractors, while, at the same time, many of our customers are facing significant budget pressures and are trying to do more with less by cutting costs, using fixed price contracts, deferring large procurements, identifying more affordable solutions, performing certain work internally rather than hiring contractors, and reducing product development cycles. If competitors can offer lower cost services and products, or provide services or products more quickly, at equivalent or even reduced capabilities, we may lose new business opportunities or contract recompetes, which could adversely affect our future results. Furthermore, acquisitions in our industry, including vertical integration, could also result in increased competition or limit our access to certain suppliers without appropriate remedies to protect our interests. To remain competitive, we must maintain consistently strong customer relationships, seek to understand customer priorities and provide superior performance, advanced technology solutions and services at an affordable cost with the agility that our customers require to satisfy their mission objectives in an increasingly price competitive environment. Our success in achieving these goals may depend, among other things, on accurately assessing our customers’ needs and our competitors’ capabilities, containing our total costs relative to competitors,

14

successfully and efficiently investing in emerging technologies, adopting innovative business models and adaptive pricing methods, effectively collaborating across our business areas, and adopting and integrating new digital manufacturing and operating technologies and tools into our product lifecycles and processes.

The effects of COVID-19 and other potential future public health crises, epidemics, pandemics or similar events on our business, operating results and cash flows are uncertain.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to present business challenges, and we continue to experience impacts related to COVID-19, primarily in increased coronavirus-related costs, delays in supplier deliveries, travel restrictions, site access and quarantine restrictions, employee absences, remote work and adjusted work schedules. We took steps to comply with the executive order mandating COVID-19 vaccines across our workforce, with exceptions approved for employees based on medical reasons or religious beliefs, until it was enjoined by a federal court in December 2021. As of December 31, 2021, more than 96% of our U.S. employee population had been vaccinated or received an approved exception. If the executive order is reinstated on appeal, or new mandates implemented, it is uncertain to what extent compliance with any such vaccine mandates may result in adverse impacts such as workforce attrition for us or our suppliers or reduced morale or efficiency. If the adverse impact is significant for us or our suppliers, our operations and ability to execute on our contracts could be adversely affected. The ultimate impact of COVID-19 on our operational and financial performance in future periods, including our ability to execute our programs in the expected timeframe, remains uncertain and will depend on future pandemic-related developments, including the duration of the pandemic, potential subsequent waves of COVID-19 infection or potential new variants, the effectiveness and adoption of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, supplier impacts and related government actions to prevent and manage disease spread, including the implementation of any federal, state, local or foreign vaccine mandates, all of which are uncertain and cannot be predicted. The long-term impacts of COVID-19 on government budgets and other funding priorities, including international priorities, that impact demand for our products and services and our business are also difficult to predict but could negatively affect our future results and performance.

In accordance with the Department of Homeland Security’s identification of the Defense Industrial Base as a critical infrastructure sector in March 2020, our U.S. production facilities have continued to operate during the pandemic, however, our operations have been adjusted in response to the pandemic. Staffing levels at our facilities, our customer facilities, and our supplier facilities have and could continue to fluctuate as a result of COVID-19, which could negatively impact our business. In addition, countries other than the U.S. have implemented different responses to the pandemic that can affect our international operations and the operations of our suppliers and customers around the world. Base closures, travel restrictions, and quarantine requirements both within and outside the U.S. have affected our normal operations and resulted in some schedule delays and future or prolonged occurrences of these could adversely affect our ability to achieve contract milestones and our results of operations.

As described in the risk factor below, we rely on other companies and the U.S. Government to provide materials, major components and products, and to perform a portion of the services that are provided to our customers under the terms of most of our contracts. Global supply chain disruption caused by COVID-19 has impacted some of our programs and could impact our ability to perform on our contracts, in particular in instances where there is not a qualified second source of supply. We have been working with our suppliers and customers to manage COVID-19 impacts, including by accelerating payments to certain suppliers based on a risk assessed need. However, if alternatives or other mitigations are not effective, deliveries and other milestones on affected programs could be adversely impacted.

We continue to monitor the impacts of COVID-19 on the fair value of our assets. While we do not currently anticipate any material impairments on the carrying value of our assets as a result of COVID-19, future changes in expectations for sales, earnings and cash flows related to intangible assets and goodwill below our current projections could cause these assets to be impaired.

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

We rely on other companies to provide materials, major components and products, and to perform a portion of the services that are provided to our customers under the terms of most of our contracts. These arrangements may involve subcontracts, teaming arrangements, joint ventures or supply agreements with other companies upon which we rely (contracting parties). There is a risk that the contracting party does not perform at all or to our expectations or meet affordability targets and we may have disputes with our contracting parties, including disputes regarding the quality and timeliness of work performed, workshares, customer concerns about the other party’s performance, our failure to issue or extend task orders, or our hiring the personnel of a subcontractor, teammate or joint venture partner or vice versa. We could also be adversely affected by actions by

15

or issues experienced by our contracting parties that are outside of our control, such as misconduct and reputational issues involving our contracting parties, which could subject us to liability or adversely affect our ability to compete for contract awards.

Changes in the economic environment, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical events, defense budgets, trade sanctions and constraints on available financing, and the highly competitive and budget-constrained environment in which we operate, may adversely affect the financial stability and viability of our contracting parties or their ability to meet their performance requirements or to provide needed supplies or services on a timely basis. Some scarce raw materials required for our products are largely controlled by a single country, including rare earth minerals that are largely controlled by China, and therefore can be adversely impacted by potential trade actions involving that country. Advanced microelectronics, including semiconductors, underpin many of our current and future critical technologies and platforms and global shortages of these products due to COVID-19 or other supply chain challenges could result in increased procurement lead times and costs and potential shortages, which could impact our performance. Additionally, our efforts to increase the efficiency of our operations and improve the affordability of our products and services could negatively impact our ability to attract and retain suppliers. We must comply with specific procurement requirements that can limit the source of supplies and we do not have secondary suppliers for some supplies. Because the identification and qualification of new or additional suppliers can take an extended period of time, issues with suppliers or trade actions that limit our ability to use certain suppliers can have an adverse impact on our business. Complying with U.S. Government contracting regulations that limit the source or manufacture of suppliers and impose stringent cybersecurity regulations also may create challenges for our supply chain and increase costs.

A failure by one or more of our contracting parties to provide the agreed-upon supplies or perform the agreed-upon services on a timely basis, according to specifications, or at all, may affect our ability to perform our obligations and require that we transition the work to other companies. Contracting party performance deficiencies may result in additional costs or delays in product deliveries and affect our operating results and could result in a customer terminating our contract for default or convenience. A default termination could expose us to liability and affect our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. A failure by our contracting parties to meet affordability targets could negatively affect our profitability, result in contract losses and affect our ability to win new business.

Many of the products and services we provide are highly engineered and involve sophisticated technologies with related complex manufacturing and systems integration processes. Our customers’ requirements change and evolve regularly. Accordingly, our future performance depends, in part, on our ability to adapt to changing customer needs rapidly, identify emerging technological trends, develop and manufacture innovative products and services efficiently and bring those offerings to market quickly at cost-effective prices. This includes efforts to implement emerging digital and network technologies and capabilities. To advance our innovation and position us to meet our customers’ requirements, we make investments in emerging technologies that we believe are needed to keep pace with rapid industry innovation and seek to collaborate with commercial entities that we believe have complementary technologies to ours. These entities may not be accustomed to government contracting and may be unwilling to agree to the government’s customary terms, including those governing intellectual property. In addition, our relationships and contracts with these commercial entities may present different risks and challenges, including with respect to intellectual property, liability and indemnification terms, than what we are accustomed to with our government customers. Due to the complex and often experimental nature of the products and services we offer, we may experience technical difficulties during the development of new products or technologies. These technical difficulties could result in delays and higher costs, which may negatively impact our financial results, and could divert resources from other projects, until such products or technologies are fully developed. See Note 1 – Organization and Significant Accounting Policies included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further details about losses incurred on certain development programs. Additionally, there can be no assurance that our development projects will be successful or meet the needs of our customers.

Our competitors may also develop new technology, or offerings, or more efficient ways to produce existing products that could cause our existing offerings to become obsolete or that could gain market acceptance before our own competitive offerings. If we fail in our development projects or if our new products or technologies fail to achieve customer acceptance, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining new contracts or winning all or a portion of next generation programs, and this could adversely affect our future performance and financial results. We also may not be successful in our efforts to grow in key areas such as hypersonics, classified programs, and winning next generation franchise programs, which could adversely affect our future performance.

16

In 2021, 28% of our total net sales were from international customers and these sales may grow in the future. International sales are subject to numerous political and economic factors, budget uncertainty, regulatory requirements, significant competition, taxation, and other risks associated with doing business outside the U.S. In international sales, we face substantial competition from both U.S. manufacturers and international manufacturers whose governments sometimes provide research and development assistance, marketing subsidies and other assistance for their products and services.

Our international business is conducted through foreign military sales (FMS) contracted through the U.S. Government and by direct commercial sales (DCS) to international customers. FMS contracts with the U.S. Government are subject to the FAR and the DFARS. In contrast, DCS transactions represent sales by us directly to international customers and are not subject to the FAR or the DFARS, although they are subject to the procurement regulations of the international customer. Sales to international customers are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations, including import-export control, technology transfer restrictions, investments, taxation, repatriation of earnings, exchange controls, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws and regulations, and the anti-boycott provisions of the U.S. Export Control Reform Act of 2018. While we have extensive policies in place to comply with such laws and regulations, failure by us, our employees or others working on our behalf to comply with these laws and regulations could result in administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities, including suspension, debarment from bidding for or performing government contracts, or suspension of our export privileges, which could have a material adverse effect on us. We frequently team with international subcontractors and suppliers who also are exposed to similar risks.

International sales present risks that are different and potentially greater than those encountered in our U.S. business. We believe DCS transactions present the greatest potential risks because they involve direct commercial relationships with parties with whom we typically have less familiarity. Additionally, international procurement and local country rules and regulations, contract laws, and judicial systems differ from those in the U.S. and, in some cases, may be less developed than in the U.S., which could impair our ability to enforce contracts and increase the risk of adverse or unpredictable outcomes, including the possibility that certain matters that would be considered civil matters in the U.S. are treated as criminal matters in other countries.

In conjunction with defense procurements, some international customers require contractors to comply with industrial cooperation regulations, including entering into industrial participation or industrial development agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, as a condition to obtaining orders for our products and services. Industrial participation or development agreements generally extend over several years and obligate the contractor to perform certain commitments, which may include in-country purchases, technology transfers, local manufacturing support, consulting support to in-country projects, investments in joint ventures and financial support projects. The customer’s expectations in respect of the scope of offset commitments can be substantial, including high-value content, and may exceed existing local technical capability. Failure to meet these commitments, which can be subjective and outside of our control, may result in significant penalties, and could lead to a reduction in sales to a country. Furthermore, certain of our existing industrial development agreements are dependent upon the successful operation of joint ventures that we do not control and involve products and services that are outside of our core business, which may increase the risk that we fail to meet our industrial cooperation agreements, expose us to compliance risks of the joint venture and impair our ability to recover our investment. For more information on our industrial development obligations, including the notional value of our remaining industrial development obligations and potential penalties for non-compliance, see “Contractual Commitments” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A).

Our international business is highly sensitive to changes in regulations (including tariffs, sanctions, embargoes, export and import controls and other trade restrictions), political environments or security risks that may affect our ability to conduct business outside of the U.S., including those regarding investment, procurement, taxation and repatriation of earnings.

On July 14, 2020 and again on October 26, 2020, the People’s Republic of China (China) announced it may impose sanctions against Lockheed Martin in response to Congressional Notifications of potential Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan, which included sales of Lockheed Martin products. We will continue to follow official U.S. Government guidance as it relates to sales to Taiwan and do not see a material impact on our sales at this time. China has not specified the nature of any such sanctions, but could seek to restrict our commercial sales or supply chain, including the supply of rare earth or other raw materials, and could also impose sanctions on our suppliers, teammates or partners. The nature, timing and potential impact of any sanctions that may be imposed by China or any other related actions that may be taken are uncertain.

17

International sales also may be adversely affected by actions taken by the U.S. Government in the exercise of foreign policy, Congressional oversight or the financing of particular programs, including the prevention or imposition of conditions upon the sale and delivery of our products, the imposition of sanctions, or Congressional action to block sales of our products. For example, the U.S. Government has imposed certain sanctions on Turkish entities and persons as described in the risk factor below, and could act in the future to prevent or restrict sales to other customers. Our international business also may be impacted by changes in foreign national priorities, foreign government budgets, global economic conditions, and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Sales of military products and any associated industrial cooperation agreements are also affected by defense budgets and U.S. foreign policy, including trade restrictions and disputes, and there could be significant delays or other issues in reaching definitive agreements for announced programs and international customer priorities could change. Additionally, the timing of orders from our international customers can be less predictable than for our U.S. customers and may lead to fluctuations in the amount reported each year for our international sales.

U.S. Government sanctions on Turkey could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows.

As a result of Turkey accepting delivery of the Russian S-400 air and missile defense system, the U.S. Government removed Turkey from the F-35 program in 2019 and in December 2020 imposed sanctions on Turkey’s defense procurement agency (SSB) and certain of the agency’s officers under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The primary sanction imposed was a restriction on all new U.S. export licenses and authorizations for any goods or technology transferred to SSB. This sanction does not apply to current, valid export licenses and authorizations; however, it does apply to any modifications or extensions of those licenses. We expect the U.S. Government to continue to engage Turkey on these issues, but we have no indication that the sanctions will be removed, that additional sanctions will not be imposed or that Turkey will not issue reciprocal sanctions.

Turkish suppliers continue to produce component parts for the F-35 program, some of which are single-sourced. We have made significant progress transitioning to non-Turkish suppliers, but due to the procedure to qualify new parts and suppliers, this collaborative process between the DoD and Lockheed Martin is ongoing. During 2020, the DoD publicly confirmed that Turkish suppliers would be permitted to provide certain components for the F-35 through 2022. Efforts to date to re-establish our replacement capacity have significantly reduced our risk, but final resolution of supply arrangements on a limited number of remaining components could affect F-35 deliveries, and any related work stoppage would impact cost. We will continue to follow official U.S. Government guidance as it relates to completed aircraft that were produced for Turkey and the export and import of component parts from the Turkish supply chain. The U.S. Government sanctions on SSB and certain affiliated persons, and Turkey’s removal from the F-35 program have not resulted in significant adverse financial effects on the F-35 program to date; however, unforeseen actions could impact the timing of orders, disrupt the production of aircraft, delay delivery of aircraft, disrupt delivery of sustainment components produced in Turkey and impact funding on the F-35 program, including impacts resulting from any reprogramming of funds that may be necessary to mitigate the impact of procuring alternate sources for Turkish made components. Although, in the case of the F-35 program, we expect that these costs ultimately would be recovered from the U.S. Government; the availability or timing of any recovery could adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations.

We have a number of contracts with Turkish industry for the Turkish Utility Helicopter Program (TUHP), which anticipates co-production with Turkish industry for production of T70 helicopters for use in Turkey, as well as the related provision of Turkish goods and services under buy-back or offset obligations, to include the future sales of helicopters built in Turkey for sale globally. Although existing export licenses are not subject to the current sanctions, we continue to expect pending and future export licensing applications and any required modifications, extensions or changes in scope to the existing licenses where SSB or any of certain affiliated persons is a party to the underlying transaction to be denied, which denials would adversely affect our ability to perform the impacted contracts. For example, since April 2021, we have received multiple denials from the U.S. Department of State for export, import and manufacturing licenses pertaining to TUHP. These denials prevent us from performing certain significant obligations under contracts for TUHP, which has and will affect our sales and impact our ability to recover certain costs. As a result of these license denials, we have provided force majeure notices under the affected contracts and these contracts may be restructured or terminated, which could result in a further reduction in sales, the imposition of penalties or assessment of damages, and increased unrecoverable costs. In addition, we have other programs where we work with Turkish industry, including for domestic U.S. Black Hawk® helicopter production, that rely on components from Turkish suppliers. While these commercial relationships are not affected by the current sanctions, they could be adversely affected by the imposition of additional sanctions.

Although the existing sanctions adversely affect our participation in TUHP, they are not currently expected to have a material effect on our overall business. The sanctions, however, may result in the loss of future sales opportunities to and in Turkey and are adversely affecting our relationships with Turkish-based suppliers who we have worked with for many years, and any future sanctions by the U.S. Government or reciprocal actions by Turkey or Turkish industry could result in further

18

restrictions on exports or imports, reductions in backlog, returns of advance payments, costs to develop alternate supply sources, restrictions on payments, force majeure events or contract restructurings or terminations. Such activity could also result in claims from our customers and suppliers, which may include the amount established in any settlement agreements, the costs of evaluating and negotiating settlement agreements or, if settlement discussions fail, potential adverse findings in arbitral or court proceedings and related costs. These effects could have a material impact on our operating results, financial position and cash flows.

We own a substantial number of U.S. and foreign patents and trademarks related to the products and services we provide. In addition to owning a large portfolio of patents and trademarks, we develop and own other intellectual property, including copyrights, trade secrets and research, development and engineering know-how, which contribute significantly to our business. We also license intellectual property to and from third parties. The FAR and DFARS provide that the U.S. Government obtains certain rights in intellectual property, including patents, developed by us and our subcontractors and suppliers in performance of government contracts or with government funding. The U.S. Government may use or authorize others, including competitors, to use such intellectual property. Non-U.S. governments may also have certain rights in patents and other intellectual property developed in performance of our contracts with these entities. The U.S. Government is pursuing aggressive positions regarding the types of intellectual property to which government use rights apply and when it is appropriate for the government to insist on broad use rights. The DoD is also implementing an overarching intellectual property acquisition policy that will require a greater focus and planning as to intellectual property rights for its programs, and we have no assurance as to the potential impacts of this policy or any associated regulatory changes on future acquisitions. The DoD’s efforts could affect our ability to protect and exploit our intellectual property and to leverage supplier intellectual property, for example, if we are unable to obtain necessary licenses from our suppliers to meet government requirements. Additionally, third parties may assert that our products or services infringe their intellectual property rights, which could result in costly and time-consuming disputes, subject us to damages and injunctions and adversely affect our ability to compete and perform on contracts.

Our business and financial performance depends on our ability to identify, attract and retain a highly skilled workforce.

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

As we consider measures to increase the efficiency of our operations and improve the affordability of our products and services, such as consolidating and relocating certain operations, they may affect personnel retention. Additionally, a substantial portion of our workforce (including personnel in leadership positions) are nearing retirement.

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

Beginning with the pandemic, a significant portion of our workforce began working remotely and we expect a significant portion to continue working remotely greater than 50% of the time when the pandemic abates. While we see many benefits to remote and hybrid work and have adopted new tools and processes to support the workforce, if we are unable to effectively

19

adapt to this hybrid work environment long term, then we may experience a less cohesive workforce, increased attrition, reduced program performance and less innovation.

Approximately 20% of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with various unions. If we encounter difficulties with renegotiations or renewals of collective bargaining arrangements or are unsuccessful in those efforts, we could incur additional costs and experience work stoppages. Union actions at suppliers can also affect us. Any delays or work stoppages could adversely affect our ability to perform under our contracts, which could negatively impact our results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition.

Given the nature of our business, we routinely experience various cybersecurity threats to our information technology infrastructure, unauthorized attempts to gain access to our company, employee- and customer-sensitive information, insider threats and denial-of-service attacks as do our customers, suppliers, subcontractors and joint venture partners. We experience similar security threats at customer sites that we operate and manage.

The threats we face vary from attacks common to most industries, such as ransomware, to more advanced and persistent, highly organized adversaries, including nation state actors, which target us and other defense contractors. These threats can cause disruptions to our business operations. If we are unable to protect sensitive information, including complying with evolving information security and data protection/privacy regulations, our customers or governmental authorities could question the adequacy of our threat mitigation and detection processes and procedures. Moreover, depending on the severity of an incident, our customers’ data, our employees’ data, our intellectual property (including trade secrets and research, development and engineering know-how), and other third-party data (such as subcontractors, suppliers and vendors) could be compromised. Products and services we provide to customers also carry cybersecurity risks, including risks that they could be breached or fail to detect, prevent or combat attacks, which could result in losses to our customers and claims against us, and could harm our relationships with our customers.

We have an extensive global security organization whose mission is to protect our systems and data, including a Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) to defend against cyber attacks and annual training of our employees on protection of sensitive information, including testing intended to prevent the success of “phishing” attacks. Additionally, we partner with our defense industrial base peers, government agencies and cyber associations to share intelligence to further defend against cyber attacks. We also have a corporate-wide counterintelligence and insider threat detection program to proactively identify external and internal threats, and mitigate those threats in a timely manner. However, because of the persistence, sophistication and volume of cyber attacks, we may not be successful in defending against all such attacks and due to the evolving nature of these security threats and the national security aspects of much of the data we protect, the impact of any future incident cannot be predicted.

We also typically work cooperatively with our customers, suppliers, subcontractors, joint venture partners and entities we acquire, who are subject to similar threats, to seek to minimize the impact of cyber threats, other security threats or business disruptions. These entities, which are typically outside our control and may have access to our information, have varying levels of cybersecurity expertise and safeguards, and their relationships with government contractors, including us, may increase the likelihood that they are targeted by the same cyber threats we face. We have thousands of direct suppliers and even more indirect suppliers with a wide variety of systems and cybersecurity capabilities and adversaries actively seek to exploit security and cybersecurity weaknesses in our supply chain. A breach in our multi-tiered supply chain could impact our data or customer deliverables. We must rely on this supply chain for detecting and reporting cyber incidents, which could affect our ability to report or respond to cybersecurity incidents effectively or in a timely manner. Because of the ongoing supply chain cyber security related threats, our customers continue to seek that large prime contractors, like Lockheed Martin, take steps to assure the cyber capabilities of their supply chain. Consequently, cyber security events in our supply chain could have an adverse impact on our relationships with our customers.

20

In addition to cyber threats, we face threats to the security of our facilities and employees and threats from terrorist acts, which could materially disrupt our business if carried out.

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

In pursuing our business strategy, we routinely conduct discussions, evaluate companies, and enter into agreements regarding possible acquisitions, joint ventures, other investments and divestitures. We seek to identify acquisition or investment opportunities that will expand or complement our existing products and services or customer base, at reasonable valuations. We often compete with other companies for the same opportunities. To be successful, we must conduct due diligence to identify valuation issues and potential loss contingencies; negotiate transaction terms; complete and close complex transactions; integrate acquired companies and employees; and realize anticipated operating synergies efficiently and effectively. Acquisition, divestiture, joint venture and investment transactions often require substantial management resources and have the potential to divert our attention from our existing business. Unidentified or identified but uncertain liabilities that are not covered by indemnification or other coverage could adversely affect our future financial results. This is particularly the case in respect of successor liability under procurement laws and regulations such as the False Claims Act or the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (formerly the Truth in Negotiations Act), anti-corruption, environmental, tax, import-export and technology transfer laws, which provide for civil and criminal penalties and the potential for debarment. We also may incur unanticipated costs or expenses, including post-closing asset impairment charges, expenses associated with eliminating duplicate facilities, employee retention, transaction-related or other litigation, and other liabilities. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

On December 20, 2020, we entered into an agreement to acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (Aerojet Rocketdyne). Closing of the transaction is subject, among other things, to expiration of any waiting period under the Hart Scott Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (which now has expired), and any other period in which the parties have agreed not to close. On January 11, 2022, the parties provided an updated notice of their intended closing date under their timing agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whereby the parties agreed that they would not close the transaction before January 27, 2022, to enable the parties to discuss the scope and nature of the merchant supply and firewall commitments previously offered to the FTC by Lockheed Martin. We have been advised by the FTC that its concerns regarding the transaction cannot be addressed adequately by the terms of a consent order. We believe it is highly likely that the FTC will vote to sue to block the transaction and expect they will make a decision before January 27, 2022. If the FTC sues to block the transaction, we could elect to defend the lawsuit within 30 days or terminate the merger agreement. If the FTC does not file a lawsuit to block the transaction before January 27, 2022, the parties could proceed to close the transaction, but there is no assurance that the FTC would not file a lawsuit challenging the transaction after the closing since the parties have not reached agreement on the terms of a consent order. A post-closing lawsuit could include taking action to seek a declaration that the acquisition is unlawful and to seek divestiture of all or part of the Aerojet Rocketdyne business or to enjoin integration of the Aerojet Rocketdyne business with Lockheed Martin’s business. There is no assurance that we would be successful in any litigation with the FTC, whether before or after closing.

We may be unable to close or achieve the expected benefits of this transaction as a result of, among other things, the failure to obtain, delays in obtaining, or adverse conditions contained in any required regulatory or other approvals for consummation of the acquisition, including any FTC lawsuit to block the transaction; Aerojet Rocketdyne’s or our business being disrupted due to transaction-related uncertainty resulting from the FTC review process or any FTC lawsuit, both before or after closing; the failure or inability due to litigation, including any FTC lawsuit, or consent orders to successfully and timely acquire and integrate Aerojet Rocketdyne and realize the expected synergies, cost savings and other benefits of the acquisition; the potential for Aerojet Rocketdyne or us to terminate the merger agreement pursuant to its terms, including if the transaction has not closed on or before March 21, 2022; competitive responses to the proposed acquisition; unexpected liabilities, costs, charges or expenses resulting from the acquisition, including the costs associated with the FTC review process, any consent order or any FTC lawsuit; and potential adverse reactions or changes to business relationships as a result of any FTC lawsuit, consent order or the completion of the acquisition. If the transaction is completed, any debt issuance to finance the acquisition will increase our interest expense and financial leverage and could negatively impact our credit ratings. The expected cash cost of the acquisition also assumes the assumption of net cash on the balance sheet of Aerojet Rocketdyne at closing after payment of outstanding debt, which is subject to uncertainty.

21

Depending on our rights and percentage of ownership, we may consolidate the financial results of such entities or account for our interests under the equity method. Under the equity method of accounting for nonconsolidated ventures and investments, we recognize our share of the operating profit or loss of these joint ventures in our results of operations. Our operating results are affected by the conduct and performance of businesses over which we do not exercise control and, as a result, we may not be successful in achieving the growth or other intended benefits of strategic investments. Our equity investments had the greatest impact on our Space business segment where approximately 6% of its 2021 operating profit was derived from its share of earnings from equity method investees, primarily that in United Launch Alliance (ULA).

Through our Lockheed Martin Ventures Fund, we make investments in early-stage companies that we believe are advancing or developing new technologies applicable to our core businesses and new initiatives important to Lockheed Martin. These investments may be in the forms of common or preferred stock, warrants, convertible debt securities or investments in funds and are generally illiquid at the time of investment, which limits our ability to exit an investment or realize an investment absent a liquidity event. Typically, we hold a non-controlling interest and, therefore, are unable to influence strategic decisions by these companies and may have limited visibility into their activities, which may result in our not realizing the intended benefits of the investments. For fund investments, we have even less influence and visibility as a non-controlling investor in a fund that invests in other companies. We may recognize significant gains or losses attributable to adjustments of the investments’ fair value, including impairments up to and including the full value of the investment, which can be affected by the success of the companies, market volatility and changes in valuations of our investment holdings.

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

Many of our employees and retirees participate in defined benefit pension plans, retiree medical and life insurance plans, and other postemployment plans (collectively, postretirement benefit plans). The impact of these plans on our earnings may be volatile in that the amount of expense we record for our postretirement benefit plans may materially change from year to year because the calculations are sensitive to changes in several key economic assumptions including interest rates and rates of return on plan assets, other actuarial assumptions including participant longevity (also known as mortality) and employee turnover, as well as the timing of cash funding. Changes in these factors, including actual returns on plan assets, may also affect our plan funding, cash flow and stockholders’ equity.

With regard to cash flow, we have made substantial cash contributions to our plans as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, and expect to make future contributions as required or when deemed prudent. We generally can recover a significant portion of these contributions related to our plans as allowable costs on our U.S. Government contracts, including FMS. However, there is a lag between the time when we contribute cash to our plans under pension funding rules and when we recover pension costs under U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), which can affect the timing of our cash flows.

In recent years, we have taken actions to mitigate the risk related to our defined benefit pension plans through pension risk transfer transactions whereby we purchase group annuity contracts (GACs) from insurance companies using assets from the pension trust and expect to continue to evaluate such transactions in the future. Although under the majority of the GACs we have purchased we are relieved of all responsibility for the associated pension obligations, we have purchased and may in the future purchase GACs whereby the insurance company reimburses the pension plans but we remain responsible for paying benefits under the plans to covered retirees and beneficiaries and are subject to the risk that the insurance company will default on its obligations to reimburse the pension trusts. While we believe pension risk transfer transactions are beneficial, future transactions, depending on their size, could result in us making additional contributions to the pension trust and/or require us to recognize noncash settlement charges in earnings in the applicable reporting period.

For more information on how these factors could impact earnings, financial position, cash flow and stockholders’ equity, see “Critical Accounting Policies - Postretirement Benefit Plans” in the MD&A and “Note 12 – Postretirement Benefit Plans” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

22

The accounting for some of our most significant activities is based on judgments and estimates, which are complex and subject to many variables. For example, accounting for sales using the percentage-of-completion method requires that we assess risks and make assumptions regarding future schedule, cost, technical and performance issues for thousands of contracts, many of which are long-term in nature. Additionally, we initially allocate the purchase price of acquired businesses based on a preliminary assessment of the fair value of identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed. For significant acquisitions we may use a one-year measurement period to analyze and assess a number of factors used in establishing the asset and liability fair values as of the acquisition date which could result in adjustments to asset and liability balances.

We have $10.8 billion of goodwill assets recorded on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2021 from previous acquisitions, which represents approximately 21% of our total assets. These goodwill assets are subject to annual impairment testing and more frequent testing upon the occurrence of certain events or significant changes in circumstances that indicate goodwill may be impaired. If we experience changes or factors arise that negatively affect the expected cash flows of a reporting unit, we may be required to write off all or a portion of the reporting unit’s related goodwill assets. The carrying value and fair value of our Sikorsky reporting unit are closely aligned. Therefore, any business deterioration, contract cancellations or terminations, or market pressures could cause our sales, earnings and cash flows to decline below current projections and could cause goodwill and intangible assets to be impaired. Additionally, Sikorsky may not perform as expected, or demand for its products may be adversely affected by global economic conditions, including oil and gas trends that are outside of our control.

Changes in U.S. (federal or state) or foreign tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation and application, including those with retroactive effect, could result in increases in our tax expense and affect profitability and cash flows. For example, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminates the option to deduct research and development expenditures immediately in the year incurred and requires taxpayers to amortize such expenditures over five years. If these provisions are not deferred, modified, or repealed by Congress with retroactive effect to January 1, 2022, they will materially decrease our cash from operations beginning in 2022. We currently estimate an approximately $500 million impact to 2022 cash from operations based on the provisions currently in effect. The actual impact on 2022 cash from operations will depend on if and when these provisions are deferred, modified, or repealed by Congress, including if retroactively, and the amount of research and development expenses paid or incurred in 2022 among other factors. In addition, recent proposals to increase the U.S. corporate income tax rate would require us to increase our net deferred tax assets upon enactment of new tax legislation, with a corresponding material, one-time, noncash decrease in income tax expense, but our income tax expense and payments would likely be materially increased in subsequent years. See "Consolidated Results of Operations - Income Tax Expense" in the MD&A for additional detail on the potential effect of tax rate increases. In addition to future changes in tax laws, the amount of net deferred tax assets will change periodically based on several factors, including the measurement of our postretirement benefit plan obligations, actual cash contributions to our postretirement benefit plans, and future changes in tax laws. In addition, we are regularly under audit or examination by tax authorities, including foreign tax authorities. The final determination of tax audits and any related litigation could similarly result in unanticipated increases in our tax expense and affect profitability and cash flows.

A significant portion of our business relates to designing, developing and manufacturing advanced defense and technology products and systems. New technologies may be untested or unproven. Failure of some of these products and services could result in extensive loss of life or property damage. Accordingly, we may incur liabilities that are unique to our products and services. In some but not all circumstances, we may be entitled to certain legal protections or indemnifications from our customers, either through U.S. Government indemnifications under Public Law 85-804, 10 U.S.C. 2354, the Commercial Space Launch Act or the Price-Anderson Act, qualification of our products and services by the Department of Homeland Security under the SAFETY Act provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, contractual provisions or otherwise. We seek to obtain insurance coverage from established and reputable insurance carriers to cover these risks and liabilities. The amount of insurance coverage that we maintain may not be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities. Insurance coverage is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance contract and is further subject to any sublimits, exclusions, restrictions, or defenses. Existing coverage is renewed annually and may be canceled while we remain exposed to the risk and it is not possible to obtain insurance to protect against all operational risks, natural hazards and liabilities. For example, we are limited in the amount of insurance we can obtain to cover unusually hazardous risks or certain natural hazards such as earthquakes, fires or extreme

23

weather conditions, some of which may be exacerbated by climate-change. We have significant operations in geographic areas prone to these risks, such as in California, Florida and Texas and certain of our properties have suffered damage from natural disasters in the past and may again in the future. We could incur significant costs to improve the climate resiliency of our infrastructure and supply chain and otherwise prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the effects of climate change. In addition, under certain classified fixed price development and production contracts we are unable to insure risk of loss to government property because of the classified nature of the contracts and the inability to disclose classified information necessary for underwriting and claims to commercial insurers. Even if insurance coverage is available, we may not be able to obtain it in an amount, at a price or on terms acceptable to us. Some insurance providers may be unable or unwilling to provide us insurance given the nature of our business or products. Additionally, disputes with insurance carriers over coverage terms or the insolvency of one or more of our insurance carriers may significantly affect the amount or timing of our cash flows.

Environmental costs and regulation, including in response to climate change, could adversely affect our future earnings as well as the affordability of our products and services.

We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign requirements for the protection of the environment, including those for discharge of hazardous materials and remediation of contaminated sites. Due in part to the complexity and pervasiveness of these requirements, we are a party to or have property subject to various lawsuits, proceedings, and remediation obligations. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, cost reimbursements or contributions, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We have incurred and will continue to incur liabilities for environmental remediation at some of our current and former facilities and at third-party-owned sites where we have been designated a potentially responsible party as a result of our historical activities and those of our predecessor companies. Environmental remediation activities usually span many years, and the extent of financial exposure can be difficult to estimate. Among the variables management must assess in evaluating costs associated with these cases and remediation sites are the status of site assessment, extent of the contamination, impacts on natural resources, changing cost estimates, evolution of technologies used to remediate the site, continually evolving environmental standards, availability of insurance coverage and indemnification under existing agreements and cost allowability issues, including varying efforts by the U.S. Government to limit allowability of our costs in resolving liability at third-party-owned sites. Our environmental remediation related liabilities could also significantly increase because of acquisitions, the regulation of new substances, stricter remediation standards for existing regulated substances, changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and regulations, or the discovery of previously unknown or more extensive contamination or new contaminants. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for environmental remediation to the extent probable and estimable, see “Critical Accounting Policies - Environmental Matters” in the MD&A and “Note 15 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

The increasing global regulatory focus on greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and their potential impacts relating to climate change could result in laws, regulations or policies that significantly increase our direct and indirect operational and compliance burdens, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. These laws, regulations or policies could take many forms, including carbon taxes, cap and trade regimes, increased efficiency standards, GHG reduction commitments, incentives or mandates for particular types of energy or changes in procurement laws. Changes in government procurement laws that mandate or take into account climate change considerations, such as the contractor’s GHG emissions, lower emission products or other climate risks, in evaluating bids could result in costly changes to our operations or affect our competitiveness on future bids. In addition to incurring direct costs to implement any climate-change related laws, regulations or policies, we may see indirect costs rise, such as increased energy or material costs, as a result of policies affecting other

24

sectors of the economy. Although most of these increased costs likely would be recoverable through pricing, to the extent that the increase in our costs as a result of these policies are greater than our competitors we may be less competitive on future bids or the total increased cost in our industry’s products and services could result in lower demand from our customers. We monitor developments in climate change-related laws, regulations and policies for their potential effect on us, however, we currently are not able to accurately predict the materiality of any potential costs associated with such developments. In addition, climate change-related litigation and investigations have increased in recent years and any claims or investigations against us could be costly to defend and our business could be adversely affected by the outcome.

Our business may be adversely affected by the outcome of legal proceedings and other contingencies that cannot be predicted with certainty. As required by U.S. GAAP, we estimate loss contingencies and establish reserves based on our assessment of contingencies where liability is deemed probable and reasonably estimable in light of the facts and circumstances known to us at a particular point in time. Subsequent developments in legal proceedings may affect our assessment and estimates of the loss contingency recorded as a liability or as a reserve against assets in our financial statements. For a description of our current legal proceedings, see Item 3 - Legal Proceedings along with “Note 15 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies” included in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Cash dividend payments and share repurchases are subject to limitations under applicable laws and the discretion of our Board of Directors and are determined after considering then-existing conditions, including earnings, other operating results and capital requirements and cash deployment alternatives. Our payment of dividends and share repurchases could vary from historical practices or our stated expectations. Decreases in asset values or increases in liabilities, including liabilities associated with employee benefit plans and assets and liabilities associated with taxes, can reduce net earnings and stockholders’ equity. A deficit in stockholders’ equity could limit our ability to pay dividends and make share repurchases under Maryland state law in the future. In addition, the timing and amount of share repurchases under Board of Directors approved share repurchase plans may differ from stated expectations and is within the discretion of management and will depend on many factors, including our ability to generate sufficient cash flows from operations in the future or to borrow money from available financing sources, our results of operations, capital requirements and applicable law.