Welcome, everyone. The Fourth Quarter 2025 HII earnings call conference will begin shortly. In the meantime, if you would like to preregister to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you change your mind, please press star followed by two. Once again, today's call is going to start shortly. Thank you for your patience. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the fourth quarter 2025 HII earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you change your mind, please press star followed by two on your telephone keypad. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. If you need further assistance, please press star 0 to reach an operator. I would like now to hand the call over to Christie Thomas, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mrs. Thomas, you may. Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the HII Fourth Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Matters discussed on today's call that constitute forward-looking statements, including our estimates regarding the company's outlook, involve risks and uncertainties, and reflect the company's judgment based on information available at the time of this call. These risks and uncertainties may cause our actual results to differ materially. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in today's press release and the company's SEC filings. We will also refer to non-GAAP financial measures. For additional disclosures about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliations to comparable GAAP measures, please see the slides that accompany this webcast, which are available on the Investor Relations page of our website at ir.hii.com. On the call today are Chris Kastner, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Tom Stiehle, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Now I'll turn the call over to Chris. Thanks, Christie. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us on our fourth quarter 2025 earnings call. Before discussing the results, highlights, and guidance, I'd like to take a moment to reflect upon our progress over the past year. The solid results we posted this morning are the outcome of a measurable increase in shipbuilding throughput, a key indicator for scheduled performance. During 2025, in partnership with our government customers, we've taken steps to increase our hiring, improve our retention, and strengthen proficiency levels within our workforce. What these efforts represent are thousands of skilled shipbuilders, engineers, technologists, and professionals who are committed to HII's mission. I'd like to say thank you to our 44,000 employees. Every improvement in our operations, every efficiency we unlock, every day we reduce from a schedule translates directly into capability our customers urgently need and can deploy to protect American interests. Now, turning to our 2025 results, revenues of $12.5 billion grew 8.2%, and EPS was $15.39. 2025 awards totaled $16.9 billion. All three of our divisions reached record revenue levels and hit key milestones. Now, I'd like to share some of the 2025 division highlights, starting with Mission Technologies. In 2025, Mission Technologies delivered another year of top-line growth, with record revenues topping the $3 billion mark for the first time. Throughout 2025, we announced key milestones that highlight the breadth of our defense technology offerings. These included developing the U.S. Army's high-energy laser weapon system, debuting GRIMM Spectrum Dominance EW solution, delivering Lionfish small unmanned underwater vehicles to the U.S. Navy, expanding shipboard and shore-based training for U.S. and coalition forces, and delivering our 750th REMUS autonomous underwater vehicle. To accelerate support of a hybrid fleet, we unveiled the Romulus family of unmanned surface vessels powered by our own Odyssey autonomy software suite, and construction of the first prototype is well underway on the Gulf Coast. In summary, the Mission Technologies team is executing well, and we are confident in continuing this success, particularly given how closely our portfolio maps to our defense customers' needs. Shifting to shipbuilding, at Ingalls we delivered our second Flight 3 destroyer DDG-128 Ted Stevens, launched DDG-129 Jeremiah Denton, and authenticated the keel of DDG-135 Thad Cochran. Also in January, we completed sea trials on DDG-1000 Zumwalt. On the amphibious ship programs, we christened LPD-30 Harrisburg and began fabrication of LPD-32 Philadelphia. An LHA-8 Bougainville is actively in the test program and has achieved generator light-off. We also signed a memorandum of agreement with HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, reinforcing our strategic collaboration to explore future partnership opportunities. Additionally, in December, the U.S. Navy announced a Golden Fleet, which includes a Trump class battleship as well as a frigate, which will leverage the proven design of the Ingalls-built Legend-class National Security Cutter. I have great confidence in Ingalls' team to execute this program and in our ongoing efforts with our partners to successfully expand the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base to meet the Navy's needs. In 2025, at Newport News Shipbuilding, we delivered Virginia-class submarine SSN 798 Massachusetts, launched SSN 800 Arkansas, laid the keel of SSN 804 Barb, and undocked SSN 796 New Jersey in preparation for her redelivery to the fleet. We also delivered the bow of the first Columbia-class submarine SSBN 826 District of Columbia. In our aircraft carrier programs, last year we completed dock trials on CVN 79 Kennedy, and the team is now finishing up her first sea trial evolution, moving another step closer to preliminary acceptance and delivery. In addition, having completed decking over of both engine rooms post receipt of the remaining major engine room components, CVN 80 has now reached 50% erected in the dry dock, and CVN 81 keel units are in fabrication, and we continue to receive major material components in support of production. After delivering two ships in 2025, DDG-128 and SSN 798, we expect to deliver another two ships in 2026, SSN 800 and LPD-30, as well as complete preliminary acceptance of CVN 79. I'll note that we've accelerated our forecast of LPD-30 delivery into 2026 and adjusted LHA-8 Bougainville delivery to 2027. This ensures that we avoid any potential conflicts, people, or equipment, and establishes clear and consistent priorities for the joint Ingalls and Navy teams throughout all the interim milestones leading to delivery. Now I'd like to update you on our operational initiatives. In 2025, we set out to improve throughput and achieve 14% year-over-year increase. As we continue to invest with our customer partner in our workforce, facilities, technology, and supply chain, we've established our 2026 target to increase throughput by another 15%. Supporting the throughput increase, we hired over 6,600 shipbuilders in 2025 and expect to hire at least this many in 2026. Given recent investments in wages and workforce, we expect continued improvement in our retention rate and will continue to develop our workforce to maximize productivity. Also, we plan to continue to ramp our distributed shipbuilding strategy. While we doubled outsourcing year-over-year in 2025, we are planning to increase outsourcing by another 30% in 2026. Our second operational initiative in 2025 was a cost reduction target of $250 million, which we met by removing mostly overhead and support labor costs for improved efficiency. Lastly, we expect several shipbuilding contract awards in 2026, including Virginia-class Block 6, Columbia Build 2, CVN 75 RCOH, and CVN 82 long-lead material. Regarding capital allocation, we have historically taken a very balanced approach, leading with reinvestments into our shipyards. Stakeholders that have visited our yards have seen firsthand the tremendous amount of investment we have made over the past decade at both Ingalls and Newport News. In 2026, we will again target hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment in the shipyards. Specifically, at Newport News, these projects include finishing a multipurpose carrier refueling and overhaul work center, making pier updates to support carrier inactivation, significant investments in manufacturing centers of excellence to support higher submarine throughput, and completion of a new parking garage that began construction in 2025. Now I'd like to say a few words about guidance, and Tom will provide more detail in his remarks. With our keen focus on execution, the progress made this past year, the large investments in shipbuilding, and the unprecedented demand for our products and services, we are raising our medium-term shipbuilding revenue growth guidance from approximately 4% to approximately 6%. We did have some sales driven by material timing move into 2025 that were expected in 2026, so our current year outlook for shipbuilding revenues is between $9.7 and $9.9 billion, and shipbuilding margins in the range of 5.5%-6.5%. For Mission Technologies, we expect revenues between $3 billion and $3.2 billion and margins of approximately 5%, with EBITDA margins between 8.4% and 8.6%. Our free cash flow outlook for 2026 is between $500 million and $600 million. Turning to activities in Washington for a moment, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026 in December. The fiscal year 2026 NDAA strongly supports our shipbuilding programs, including incremental funding and block buy procurement authorization for CVNs 82 and 83, incremental funding and procurement authorization for up to five Columbia-class submarines, and continuous production authority for a range of Virginia-class components to optimize construction schedules and supply chain resilience. The fiscal year 2026 Defense Appropriation Bill shows strong support for our programs. The bill includes continued incremental funding for CVNs 80 and 81, along with advanced procurement for CVN 82, continued funding for CVN 74 RCOH, funding for the Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarine programs, advanced procurement for the DDG-51 program, and funding for long-lead materials for the new frigate program. Combined with the shipbuilding funding provided in the Budget Reconciliation Bill that was enacted into law in July 2025, the FY26 Defense Appropriations Bill continues the strong support for the shipbuilding industry. In summary, we've made meaningful progress over the past year and have increased throughput and improved execution. We must build on this momentum and continue to increase our shipbuilding throughput. The U.S. Navy and all of our defense customers need our ships and technologies now more than ever. The global security environment demands that we operate with a sense of urgency and purpose that matches the seriousness of the threats our nation faces. Now I will turn the call over to Tom for some remarks on our financial results and guidance. Tom? Thanks, Chris, and good morning. Today, I'll review our fourth quarter and full year results and also provide some additional color regarding our outlook for 2026. For more detail on the segment results, please refer to the earnings release issued this morning and posted to our website. Beginning with our consolidated results on slide six, our fourth quarter revenues of $3.5 billion increased approximately 16% compared to the same period last year. The higher revenues were driven by growth at all three segments. Ingalls' fourth quarter 2025 revenues of $889 million increased $153 million, or 21% compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, driven primarily by higher volumes on amphibious assault ships and surface combatants. At Newport News, fourth quarter 2025 revenues of $1.9 billion increased $303 million, or 19% from the fourth quarter of 2024, primarily due to higher volumes in both submarines and aircraft carriers. At Mission Technologies, fourth quarter 2025 revenues of $731 million increased $18 million, or 2.5% from the fourth quarter of 2024, primarily driven by higher volumes in warfare systems, global security, and unmanned systems. Moving to slide seven, segment operating income for the quarter was $195 million, and segment operating margin was 5.6%. This compares to $103 million and 3.4% respectively in the fourth quarter of 2024. Results at all three segments improved compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Ingalls' fourth quarter 2025 operating income of $68 million and margin of 7.6% compared to $46 million and 6.3% respectively in the fourth quarter of 2024. The improvement was due to the higher volumes noted as well as lower unfavorable cumulative adjustments of amphibious assault ships and surface combatants compared to the fourth quarter of 2024. Newport News' fourth quarter 2025 operating income of $84 million and margin of 4.4% compared to $38 million and 2.4% respectively in the fourth quarter of 2024. If you recall, these results are lapping the fourth quarter of 2024, which included unfavorable cumulative adjustments for Virginia-class submarines and new carrier construction, as well as contract incentives related to the Columbia-class program. Fourth quarter 2025 results also include favorable contract adjustments on the Virginia-class program. Shipbuilding margin for the fourth quarter of 2025 was 5.5%. Mission Technologies' fourth quarter 2025 operating income of $43 million and segment operating margin of 5.9% compared to $19 million and 2.7% respectively in the fourth quarter of 2024. The improvement was driven by better performance in warfare systems, global security, and unmanned systems, as well as the high emission technologies volume I noted earlier. Net earnings in the quarter were $159 million compared to $123 million in the fourth quarter of last year. Diluted earnings per share in the quarter were $4.04 compared to $3.15 in the fourth quarter of the previous year. Moving on to consolidated results for 2025 on slide eight, revenues of $12.5 billion increased $949 million, or 8.2% compared to 2024. While each segment contributed to the higher revenue, growth was particularly strong at Ingalls and Newport News Shipbuilding. Ingalls' revenues of $3.1 billion in 2025 increased $311 million, or 11.2% from 2024, driven primarily by higher volumes in surface combatants and amphibious assault ships. At Newport News, 2025 revenues of $6.5 billion increased by $538 million, or 9% from 2024, due to higher volumes in both submarines and aircraft carriers. At Mission Technologies, 2025 revenues of $3 billion increased $107 million, or 3.6% from 2024, primarily driven by higher volumes in warfare systems, global security, and unmanned systems. Moving to slide 9, segment operating income for the year was $717 million, and segment operating margin was 5.7%. This compares to $573 million and 5% respectively in 2024. Ingalls' operating income of $233 million and margin of 7.6% in 2025 compared to $211 million and 7.6% respectively in 2024. The increase in operating income was primarily driven by the higher volumes noted earlier and favorable contract adjustments in surface combatants, partially offset by lower performance in amphibious assault ships. Newport News' 2025 operating income of $331 million and margin of 5.1% compared to $246 million and 4.1% respectively in 2024. The increases were primarily driven by favorable contract adjustments in the Virginia-class submarine program, partially offset by contract adjustments and incentives in 2024 in the aircraft carrier refueling and complex overhaul program. Shipbuilding margin for 2025 was 5.9%, within the guidance range we provided for the year and consistent with my commentary on our last earnings call. This represents a 70 basis point improvement over 2024's results. Net cumulative adjustments for the year were negative $28 million. Newport News' net cumulative adjustments was negative $64 million, which included adjustments related to CVN 80 and CVN 81 carrier construction. The negative Newport News cumulative adjustment was partially offset by positive net cumulative adjustments at Ingalls of approximately $16 million and Mission Technologies of approximately $20 million. Moving on, Mission Technologies' 2025 operating income of $153 million and segment operating margin of 5% both improved from $116 million and 3.9% respectively in 2024. The improvement was driven primarily by the lower purchased intangible amortization, better performance in warfare systems, as well as higher revenue volumes noted earlier. Mission Technologies' 2025 results included approximately $89 million of amortization of purchased intangible assets compared to approximately $99 million in 2024. Mission Technologies' EBITDA margin for 2025 was 8.6%, up from 7.9% in 2024. Net earnings in 2025 were $605 million compared to $550 million in 2024. Diluted earnings per share in 2025 were $15.39 compared to $13.96 in 2024. Turning to cash flow on slide 10, 2025 free cash flow was $800 million, above the guidance range we had provided for the year as we finished the year very strong from a working capital position and slightly underran our planned capital expenditures for the year. During the year, the company invested $396 million in capital expenditures, or 3.2% of sales, as we continued to prioritize investments to drive higher throughput in our shipyards. We paid dividends totaling $213 million in a year and did not repurchase any shares during the year. We ended 2025 with $774 million in cash and cash equivalents on hand and liquidity of approximately $2.5 billion. Cash contributions to our pension and other post-retirement benefit plans totaled $54 million in 2025. You can find our updated five-year pension outlook in the appendix of today's presentation on slide 14. Turning to slide 11 and our financial outlook. First, I will highlight that the guidance we are providing today is predicated on achieving the shipbuilding throughput improvements that we've outlined, as well as reaching agreement on the next Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarine contracts in the first half of the year. Regarding our multi-year targets, we are updating the medium-term growth targets that we have provided previously. We now expect a consolidated HII medium-term top-line CAGR of approximately 6%. This is comprised of shipbuilding growth of approximately 6% and Mission Technologies' growth of approximately 5%. We believe this shipbuilding growth has additional upside as the forecast does not yet account for the recently announced frigate or battleship programs. We will need to revisit these growth assumptions once we have a better understanding on each of these programs. We'll proceed forward. Regarding our 2026 expectations, Chris provided our outlook, but let me provide a bit more color on our free cash flow expectation for the year. We expect 2026 free cash flow of between $500 million and $600 million. At the midpoint, that puts combined 2025 and 2026 free cash flow at $1.35 billion, an increase from the $1.2 billion target we discussed last quarter for the two-year projection. As I noted earlier, we finished 2025 very strong from a working capital perspective. Overall, working capital was a tailwind of approximately $170 million in 2025. We think careful working capital management, along with beneficial cash tax impacts from the One Big Beautiful Bill, will continue to be a cash tailwind in 2026. As Chris mentioned, we continue to prioritize strategic capital investments into our shipyards. We expect 2026 capital expenditures to be approximately 4%-5% of sales. This represents approximately $500 million-$600 million of investment to drive capacity and throughput. You can find additional 2026 guidance elements on the 2026 outlook table on slide 11 of the presentation or in the earnings release. This includes an anticipated 2026 effective tax rate of approximately 17%. This lower tax rate is primarily attributable to an expected reduction in total tax expense related to research and development tax credits. Turning to our provided look ahead for the first quarter of 2026, we expect approximately $2.3 billion for shipbuilding revenues and $700 million-$750 million of Mission Technologies revenues, with shipbuilding operating margin near 5.5% and Mission Technologies' operating margin up between 4%-4.5%. Consistent with normal cash flow cadence, we expect first quarter free cash flow to be negative, representing a use of approximately $600 million as some of the fourth quarter working capital benefit unwinds. To close my remarks and echo Chris's comments, we have exited 2025 with good momentum and are focused on a clear set of goals and objectives for 2026 that are aligned to our customers' needs and our national security while continuing to create value for the HII enterprise. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Christie for Q&A. Thanks, Tom. As a reminder to everyone on the call, please limit yourself to one initial question and one follow-up so we can get as many people through the queue as possible. Operator, I will turn it over to you to manage the Q&A. Thank you, Christie. To ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad now. If you change your mind, please press star followed by two. When preparing to ask your question, please ensure your device is unmuted locally. Our first question is from Robert Stallard from Vertical Research Partners. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thanks so much. Good morning. Morning. Morning. Chris, I'd like to follow up on those productivity numbers that you gave, the 14% progress in 2025. I was wondering if the performance there was the same across the various shipbuilding programs, and then how much more is needed, for example, on the Virginia-class if you're going to get consistently to two a year? Yeah, it was pretty broad-based improvement across the programs. The Virginia-class program actually did very well in 2025. Remember, those schedules were reset post-COVID, so there's an incremental walkup in throughput required to get to the two Virginia-class per year. But they had a very good year last year, but it was really broad-based improvement across the portfolio, both at Newport News and Ingalls. Okay. And then quickly, as a follow-up, you mentioned that there's a step up in CAPEX this year. How do you expect the long-term CAPEX to progress from here? Do you expect it to remain around 4% of sales going forward? Well, we don't have guidance beyond this year yet, Rob, but I do expect it to continue to be elevated simply because there's such opportunity out there. Tom, I don't know if you want to give any more additional details related to that, but I do expect it to continue to be elevated, but we're not going to provide additional guidance at this point. That's right, Chris. I'd just comment on that. As he says, this opportunity, the rewards are plentiful going forward, and obviously, that's going to drive the top line. There's going to be a need for capital and investments both from our Navy partner and ourselves in that. So I haven't provided that yet, but I would expect it to be higher than where we've been in the past and probably consistent with where we are right now going forward in 2026. Okay. That's great. Thanks so much. Thanks, Rob. Thank you, Robert. Our next question is from Doug Harned from Bernstein. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you. You've got. Morning, Doug. Yeah, good morning. So you saw really good revenue growth in Q4 at both yards. In Newport News, though, your margins are still pretty low. Tom, you mentioned the two negative EACs on the CVN program. But when you look across the programs at Newport News, my assumption is you're working hard to get those margins higher. How do you see each of the programs in terms of their ability to improve and get to the goals that you're really looking for longer term? Appreciate the question there. Yeah. So when we look at Newport News and the EACs are stable, the booking rates, obviously, we want to get those up right there. That's going to be a function, as we've described in the past, of working off the existing portfolio we have right now. We have these pre-COVID ships that have been impacted by schedule and inefficiency. And as those continue to evolve out, we talk about the portfolio in 2027 becoming more post than pre-COVID. That's going to assist in that list. I believe what we've done in wages and what we've done in contract adjustments, some change management REAs that we have in that will assist in that too. A piece of what we're seeing at Newport News fairly consistent across all four quarters there. It's just a mix of the portfolio itself, contract type, additional work scope that we have. The growth, which is good on the top line, is coming about both in labor and material, but on the material side, it's hitting contracts at either advanced procurement, which have restrictions on margins and fee right now. Then as we kind of work ourselves forward and definitize either those contracts or new contract awards, we'll see a moderate ramp in either fee on the existing contracts or incentives that can come in place on the new awards there. So that's the playbook going forward. We're working hard to kind of stabilize performance. We've seen improvement in hiring, attrition, moderate improvements in rework. So it's the stabilization, the EACs, making our milestones, working off the existing portfolio, and getting into those new start contracts. Well, when you look at, you've got a lot of money for the industrial base off those last two, Block Five. But as you commented, the 2026 budget has really big support for shipbuilding. One of the things that we found challenging is the money can be there, but it's getting it through, the throughput that you're talking about. Right now, you've probably seen a lot of the commentary about a pretty significant addition to the 2027 budget, potentially, which could include money for the industrial base. When you look at it from a shipbuilding standpoint, do you need more, or are you in already a good position given the large amount of funding that's come in? And is that enabling you to get where you need to be with respect to your industrial base? Yeah. So Doug, let me take that, and I can Tom, if he wants to add, that's great. But definitely, the Block 5 two-boat contract assisted us from a capital standpoint, a wages standpoint, to increase throughput at Newport News. There is more capital required. We're going to continue to ramp the throughput within Newport News on the submarine program and the aircraft carrier program. So there will be additional capital requirements. We hope to partner with our Navy customer to provide that capital, both our internal capital as well as incentives. But there's plenty of opportunity to increase throughput both internally within the shipyards and then through distributed shipbuilding as well because it's not just labor. It's not just additional labor and throughput within the shipyards. We need to expand distributed shipbuilding as well. We had a pretty good year last year. We'll have another good year this year in expanding the industrial base, and some of the investments could go there as well. So we welcome the opportunity to continue investment, to increase throughput, and we're going to continue to do that. Yeah. I'd piggyback on the backside of that. I'm with you about the budgets and opportunities set today. We're seeing it flow into the company, so it's not just on the budget line. Both Q3 and Q4 saw HII have quarters of 16% growth. We finished out the year this year in 2025 at 8.2% growth from 2025/2024. We saw shipbuilding at 9.7% for the year for 2025/2024. I'm inspired by several quarters now in a row of seeing double-digit growth in shipbuilding. Ingalls was at 11.2% and Newport News 9% for the year. So the dollars are there. There's a need for our products and services, the fundings in place, both with our backlog and anticipated awards that we have coming in 2026. I'm happy to see an inflection of the labor and material flowing into the yards, increased outsourcing. We've established over 23 vendors last year, and there's more to follow going forward. You can see from our earnings release, we've increased outsourcing by 100% last year. We have a 30% target this year. The inflection that we've discussed is happening right now. The guide right now at 6% is probably a conservative guide, but it's the beginning of the year. Let's get into it. We've beaten that the last 2 quarters, and we'll see that we can continue hiring, retention, and outsourcing. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. Our next question is from Scott Mikus from Melius Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Morning, Chris and Tom. Quick question. Ingalls and Newport News both exited 2025 with a lot of top-line momentum. You did note that the fourth quarter had some pull forward, but the first quarter guide, if my math is right, calls for shipbuilding sales to be up 13% year-over-year. But then that implies that shipbuilding sales are down 1% for the remaining three quarters. Is that just a function of tougher comps? Because it seems like you have a healthy amount of opportunity based on the milestones laid out in the slides. Yeah. I wouldn't get too tied up in how that plays out for the whole year. There's a lot of timing in that. Both we saw a little bit material, unexpected, even with the guide we gave you, going from 8.9% to 9.1% to 9.0% to 9.1%, and then we came out at 9.5%. So there's some material that got pulled to the left. I would tell you it's not a one-time trick there of getting revenue up in Q4 because, as I just answered in the previous question, Q3 and Q4 saw some good growth. The backlog and the new awards are going to facilitate that, and then the outsourcing and the hiring is all going to continue that. I think it's more just a conservative guide that we have right now. It's the beginning of the year. We want to make sure we continue with the momentum. We're exiting last year on the top line, and I would anticipate I expect that to continue going forward here. So there's always some choppiness from quarter to quarter on milestones and margin recognition on ship deliveries and major milestones. So there's nothing overly to highlight that's going to be problematic as the revenue, I expect, to continue to ramp into 2026. Okay. And then on the new battleships, is there a possibility that a Japanese or Korean shipyard could fund some of the CAPEX to fulfill their obligations under the recent trade deals, and then you contribute the workforce and the design sort of in a joint venture-type format? That way, it would be an attractive investment for Huntington from a return on invested capital standpoint. Yeah, really not sure. I think the aperture is open relative to the industrial base and how that battleship is going to get built. There's a need for additional capacity in the industrial base. And could a foreign investor bring more capacity into the industrial base? Sure. I don't know if it'd be necessarily for the battleship, but that's always an opportunity. So you need to keep the aperture open, and depending on how that acquisition profile or that acquisition strategy develops, then I think the investments will follow. All right. Thank you. Sure. Scott, our next question is from Noah Poponak from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hey. Good morning, guys. Morning, Allen. So I guess if I kind of zoom out and look at the shipbuilding margin, it's kind of flattish through 2025. I mean, it's actually down sequentially a little bit through 2025. 2026 guidance kind of flattish first 2025. Recognizing it's a long-cycle business and manufacturing process, and these things take time, I guess just with the incremental funding, the throughput achievements, the labor achievements, Tom, you just reiterated better mix of contract by 2027. Help us better understand how the shipbuilding margins are flat for that full two-year window. Do they snap in 2027 when the mix flips to more post-COVID? And to what extent is the waiting on the next batch of nuclear subcontracts pretty binary in this discussion because you have to book so much long lead at a low margin before you get that? Let me start on that note, and then Tom can chip in on the back end. But I mean, you know our process, I think, relative to how we evaluate risk and opportunities when we do our plan. We're very disciplined in how we evaluate them and how we develop our guidance for the subsequent year, and that's what we've done. I would say that there is investment required that we're making in outsourcing and overtime to prioritize schedules on these ships, which is impacting our profitability, there's no doubt. We think that makes sense. We're going to continue to do it because the strategy to get out of these ships into the next ships just makes great sense. Relative to the submarine program, we think that needs to get done by the end of the first half of the year. We need to make sure that we don't incur risk related to a delayed start on that program. The teams are meeting. I have high hopes that after the 2026 budget was done and then the 2027 budget, we get a little more clarity that everything will fall into place and we'll get started. But we really need to get that done in the first half of the year. Tom, I don't know if you have anything else. Yeah. I have some comments for you, Scott, on the street there. So to your point on the new contract starts that are coming with the awards when we book low, that's baked in already into the guidance that we provide, right? So nothing's changed just because those awards are coming and what we gave you in 2026. And then Chris and I have said that, "Hey, the 9%-10% is not just aspirational. We've been there before, and we want to get there." We haven't given the street the timing of that. We've said incrementally, we would expect to improve annually. And we still feel that way right now going from 2025 to 2026. If you think about 2024, it was 5.2%. 2025 was 5.9%. That's up 13%. And although we give you a range of 5.5%-6.5%, it's kind of in line. Chris said back in Q3 2024, heading into 18 to 24 months, it's going to be choppy. We're going to work off these old ships. So a re-guide of what we gave you last year is not inconsistent. And even in Q3, when I gave you the hey, I said it's around the midpoint. It could be a little bit higher with the awards. It could be a little bit lower without the awards. And we didn't get the awards in 2025. They've fallen into this year, and we finished at 5.9% rough. So we're not surprised. So it's off what we've been talking about that we're dealing with here. I tell you that the range is consistent in 2026 as it is in 2025. We finished 2025 at 5.5% for the quarter. When we look at Q1 right here, there's not a plethora of milestones or selloffs that's going to change what the last 13 weeks did for the next 13 weeks. So again, if we think about it, we shouldn't be surprised that we guided fairly conservative at the beginning of the year and consistent with what the actuals were for Q4. As we look at Q4, there's timing in there. There's a higher volume of the new starts that I've talked about, advanced procurement that kind of either no fee or limits fee. So we'll work that off. And then the material, which is good for the top line, pulls a little less fee on a couple of our contracts as we work ourselves through that. The 5.5%-6.5%, it's still a good range of outcomes. Last year, it was just about at the midpoint without the awards. So we're expecting those awards to happen this year. In my remarks, I said in the first half of the year. And then with the milestones that we've given you in this Q2, Q4, we provide the milestones. We met most of them last year, and we expect to go do that most to all of them this year here. So that's going to be a lift on where we go forward here. The awards will have some incentives to them too that we didn't have last year. So that's going to be an assist as we go forward. And then I mentioned the increase from the 5.2% of 2024 to 5.9% of 2025. And the midpoint at 6%, although moderate, is still kind of better than the actuals of last year. And we have a whole year to go work the contracts here. And then kind of lastly, as Chris said, it was baked in already, but we have had, as we put focus on milestones and delivering the ships as fast as possible for our Navy customer, we have put a premium additional overtime. We have both sites working higher overtime than usual. So there's a little bit of draw on cost efficiency on that. And then the first outsourcing and first-time bills, just a little bit of extra cost in that. Not unanticipated. Again, it's all in our guide and our progression as we turn the portfolio heading towards 2027. I hope that was helpful. That was very helpful. It's a lot of detail, and I appreciate it. When you provided the shipbuilding medium-term revenue growth target, the 6%, you have the sub-bullet point there that says additional upside from recently announced programs. Can you talk a little bit more about that? I mean, how much upside? And specifically on the SSC win, when does that start ramping up for you? Yeah. So yeah, thanks, Noah. The frigate win, that pretty confident, very confident we're going to build the first two boats or first two ships in that class. We're unsure what the acquisition strategy is. Beyond that, I think we'll learn more when the 2027 budget comes out. But we're fortunate on that program that we still have a lot of material from NSC 11, which is really a lot of the upfront cost on a ship. So I don't expect material impact to sales this year. It should start to ramp in 2027. The battleship is a little different. We're still engaged with the Navy on understanding how that design's going to unfold with us, the Navy, and BIW. So there'll be modest revenue this year, and then it'll ramp from there. We don't have specific numbers for you right now, but as we understand them, we will provide them. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Noah. Our next question is from Pete Skibitski from Alembic Global Advisors. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hey. Good Good morning, guys. Hey, Chris, could you talk more about the supply chain? Chris, can you talk more about the supply chain at Newport News? I think you touched on it in your remarks, but I didn't quite hear all of it. Did you receive all the equipment from the supply chain that you expected in the fourth quarter on CVN 80, or was it later than expected? Is that what drove the negative EACs? And kind of where are you right now in that program? And just want to get a better sense of that. Yeah. So we have received all of the engine room material, done deck over. As I said in my prepared remarks, we're 50% erected, and we'll continue to make progress this year. Have a little bit of momentum on that program. Throughput has actually accelerated. And the key there is to getting back in sequence, which they're working very hard to do. So there was investment in overtime on 80 to get back on schedule, try to get back on schedule. And as I said, they're working hard to do that. Okay. Sounds good. Then just, Chris, between reconciliation and the 2026 appropriations bill that's law now, did you get all of your priorities through in the budget this past year that you wanted? Just wondering if there's anything that didn't get into those bills that is going to be a priority for you in fiscal 2027. No. It's universal support for shipbuilding and reconciliation, the 2026 budget, the potential 2027 budget. It's all on us to execute now, but all of our programs are supported. Okay. Great. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Pete. Our next question is from Seth Seifman from JP Morgan. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hey. Thanks very much, and good morning. Wanted to follow up quickly on the frigate. I think you talked about that being a driver potentially of growth in 2027. I mean, given the target of having a boat in the water in 2028, should we think about that ramping up rather quickly? And is there anything you could say about the magnitude of the lifts there at Ingalls and what it will do to the mix as well, given that I think the NSC was a very profitable ship for that yard. I think it's a little bit too early for that. I think if you were to project the cost related to ship getting in the water in two years, less the long-lead material, there's probably enough data out there for you to figure out what that could mean from a sales standpoint. So that is upside. But beyond that, I think it's a little bit too early to talk about potential top-line upside related to that until we get a little bit further along. Okay. Okay. Should we think about that being mix-wise being NSC-like? I wouldn't necessarily think that, right? We're going to work with our customer to get a fair deal on that contract. So I wouldn't necessarily think about that. I think on a blended rate, getting to 9%-10% margin is still our objective, and I think we'll eventually get there. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks. And then just to follow up, given where you ended the year on with the cash balance and what you're forecasting for 2026, have a decent amount of excess cash on the balance sheet by year-end. I know there's understandably a certain amount of reticence about repurchases at this point. But with good performance, does that become more of an option, or are there other things you would think about doing with it? Or do we just kind of maybe sit with some excess cash for a little while? Yeah. Remember, in the words of one of my predecessors, cash can be pretty lumpy. So it will continue to be lumpy in shipbuilding. But we think the overwhelming opportunity from a value standpoint is to continue to invest in the shipyards. So we're going to do that. It's going to improve both the top and bottom line. So that's our focus right now, and it's been our focus for a while. Great. Thanks very much. Sure. Thank you, Seth. Our next question is from Jason Gursky from Citi. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to just revisit shipbuilding margins one more time. There was a lot of good detail. I think you made clear that there's some conservatism in the outlook. What I'm interested in is, in the first quarter, you have shipbuilding margins kind of at the low end of the full-year guidance. It suggests that the conservatism is more of a back half event as it plays out. Is that right, or is that not? Can you help us just think about the shape of margins throughout the year? And is that conservatism something in the back half, or might we just see a stronger start to the year than expected, as you suggested? Yeah. So obviously, we gave you the annual guide at 5.5%-6.5%. We've been giving for the last couple of years, the next quarter, so it's 5.5%. That kind of leaves you guessing for Q2, Q3, Q4. I'd say stay consistent with just what you've seen from us over the years. It's about the milestones. It's about performance. It's about the deliveries. There's nothing that's going to alter it one way or the other other than timing, how we perform over the next 11 months. And then the awards themselves will bring about a good balance of affordability to profitability, the contract terms and conditions. There'll be some incentives in there, so we'll have to work ourselves through that. Not going to give any more comment on that as we're in negotiations through negotiations as that effort's trying to get through approval cycle right now. But yeah, I mean, I think it's the beginning of the year. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Really, it makes sense that we exit Q4 at 5.5% kind of run right over there. So we're going to hold pat at this number. We'll update you in May, and you'll get a look-see both for what's going to happen as a forecast in Q2. We have hinted that we'd like to see the awards. We expect the awards the first half of the year here. So that's going to facilitate a good pace and a trajectory of at least midpoint or better going forward here for the year. I guess my question is, is it even possible that we start the year at the higher end, at 6.5%, that we fast forward a quarter or two and we realize that we delivered numbers like that? Or in terms of the art of the possible, that's not even on the table. The range is for the entire year. I'd stay focused on what we gave you for the quarter. Okay. Fair enough. And then if we just double-click on the milestones and the timeline, as you guys know, with deliveries, with the milestones, there's an intense focus on different milestones as we get closer to the dates. Are there any milestones or delivery dates that you would just flag for us right now to kind of bracket and sensitize a little, one that might be pushed a little bit more than others, just so that we can have that conversation now instead of on the eve of expecting some sort of delivery or milestone event? Any risk around anything that you would just kind of take the opportunity to bound for us? Sure. Delivery of 30 and the delivery of 800 towards the end of the year. Very focused on getting both of those boats done. So that's how I would call from a risk standpoint and an opportunity standpoint. Those two, that boat and that ship, are very critical to us. Got it. Thank you, guys. Sure. Thank you, John. Our next question is from Scott Deuschle from Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hey. Good morning. Tom, do you expect the company to make money on CVN 80 and 81 given this trend of negative EACs? Yes. Yes. We do. We think we're booked accordingly right now. We've described what transpired on those ships upfront. We've been impacted by some material that goes deep into the ship. That risk is behind us. Obviously, that's caused an impact on the schedule. So the schedule's a little bit longer, and it's created some cost inefficiencies. We're working LHA-8 specifically out of sequence. But with the deck over right now, the team's feverishly working with the experience they have building carriers, getting that back on sequence, getting it out of the dry dock, and then doing the ship/shore work kind of going forward here. But we have not forecasted, or we do not expect it not to be profitable. Okay. And then, Chris, there are a lot of data centers under construction in the state of Virginia, it looks like, within an hour or two's drive from Newport News. Are you seeing that have any kind of impact on the labor situation at Newport News, particularly for trades like electricians or pipe fitters? That's interesting. We haven't seen the impact. The applicants and the hiring in Newport News was very, very strong over the back half of the year. So we haven't seen it yet. We'll watch out for it. We're fortunate. The regional workforce development centers have been coordinating with the federal government, state governments, to produce good shipbuilders. We're going to continue to work on that pipeline, but we have not seen that. Good to hear. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Scott. Our next question is from Myles Walton from Wolfe Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. Tom, I was wondering. Okay, I'm wondering if you can give us a little bit more color on the improvement in attrition because I'm trying to put the math together. You hired 6,600 shipbuilders. I think you got another 500 employees from W International's acquisition. But I also think that you finished headcount flat versus the start of the year. So walk me through what your definition of improvement in attrition is. Did you end with the headcount you expected? And then do you expect headcount to grow in 2026? Let me start. If Tom has anything additional, he can add it. Throughput did improve year-over-year. It's about a 15%-18% improvement across both shipyards. Both shipyards improved. In that data, the 44,000 employees, Myles, we have support labor in that as well. And obviously, Mission Technologies labor in that as well. We did increase staff in both shipyards. We ended pretty much where we wanted to be, and we're in a pretty good place from an applicant flow and a hiring standpoint for next year. From a labor standpoint, we're in a pretty good place. We do need to continue to improve attrition and efficiency of the workforce, which we're working very hard at. But with that, we also need to continue to focus on distributed shipbuilding because in order to get through all of these ships, it's not just the shipyards that are going to be required to be more efficient. We need to work on distributed shipbuilding, continue to qualify suppliers, and make sure they're efficient in producing what they need to produce as well. That's a comment on that. I think Chris said there's the mix of it. It's Tom here. I'll comment just on that. It's the mix of the labor, right? There's direct labor, there's support. There's job shoppers that we have that's not in the number. And then there's outsourced work that we have. So all that goes into our ability to kind of ramp and both get more earned progress and get more work accomplished towards the milestones going forward. Okay. Then one quick one on Mission Technologies. I think you're benefiting by another $20 million runoff in amortization, which would imply an 80 basis points step down in EBITDA margins, basically very little growth in EBIT despite the $20 million runoff. Is that right? And if so, what's driving the year-on-year profile for Mission Technologies profit? Yeah. So you're talking about, I guess, the guide, or are you talking about from how we performed in 2025 to 2024 or the guide to 2026? 2026 is guidance for 5% EBIT. But it should be benefiting, I believe, by about 80 basis points of amortization runoff. Yeah. I think the amortization runoff is about $10 million improvement. So it's not as much as that. I would tell you that so that's a piece of it. It's about half of it. And then just the other half is what we're seeing in our contract performance, the maturity of how we're executing. We had some fee write-ups in 2025 that we took, and there's a potential of opportunity sets in 2026. Our nuclear business with equity income always has upside, and we have to see how the year plays out and how our scores are. We get evaluated by the customer set, so that's included in there. Although your question was specifically on the return on sales side, the EBIT side, I would tell you on the EBITDA side, you saw we raised the guidance from 8.0% to 8.5% last year. The 8.6% finish, so up almost 50 basis points on that, now to 8.4%-8.6%. Again, just the maturation of the portfolio. I'm trying to, although it's predominantly cost-type contracts, trying to see where we can get the additional value of bidding more products than services, a little bit more how we bid these jobs, and a focus on profitability there. So it's an incremental improvement. I like how we finished out from 2025 versus 2024. And it's good to see an incremental improvement on both metrics going forward in 2026. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for the question. Thank you, Myles. Our next question is from Gautam Khanna from TD Cowen. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hey. Good morning, guys. Morning, Gautam. Wanted to ask on Ingalls. I know there was and maybe you addressed it, and I missed it, but the union contract, did you guys push the wage increases through in Q4, and was that part of the revenue upside at shipbuilding broadly in the quarter? No. Not at Ingalls. No. No. And what's sort of the timing on that? We expect to get through that in the first quarter. I don't want to comment directly on a union negotiation, but we're engaged heavily with the union to get that done almost daily. But we expect that to get done in the first quarter. Gotcha. And just on the VCS Block 6 and the Columbia-class contract, what is your best sense on timing of when that might get awarded formally? Gautam, it's really hard to say. We need it before the end of the first half of the year in order to maintain our production schedules. But it's just hard to say. We're engaged heavily with Electric Boat and the Navy to get it behind us. And I think we will get it done. And as I said previously, the 2026 budget getting done and then clarity around what's going to happen in 2027 and the FYDP, I think, really helps. And after that falls into place, we can get those contracts behind us. One thing I know for sure, the Navy's going to buy submarines. So we need to get it done before the first half of the year so we can maintain the production schedules and make sure that is not a risk that we have to deal with. And I would just love to get your perspectives, if you're willing to share them, on how this thing was expected at one point to be done over a year ago, then we were thinking year-end 2025. Is there any long poles in the tent, or is this just sort of T's and C's, minor stuff that needs to get hashed out? Or is there a big I'm just curious if you can give us any sort of update just because we've been talking about it for north of a year. Gautam, I just think it's a big complicated contract. You have three parties involved that need to all be comfortable with what the solution is. Fortunately, those teams work very well together. It's just a big complicated contract, and we need to get to the finish line here. Okay. Thank you, guys. Sure. Thank you, Gautam. Our last question is from Mariana Pérez Mora from the Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you very much for taking my question. Good morning, everyone. Morning. My question is going to be about Mission Technologies. How should we think about the share or the mix towards unmanned solutions, autonomy, and those things in that portfolio? Because I could imagine those are growing double digits. I'm wondering when we should start to see that reflected in the growth for that segment. So interesting. Let me start here. Thank you for bringing up that question. We don't break out growth rates within Mission Technologies by market segment. But I will say that unmanned is doing very well, unmanned undersea and unmanned surface, as you can see by the launch of our new Romulus vehicles. And I think it's interesting when you think about the new or the evolving Navy strategy around the hybrid fleet or the hedge fleet, that we're right in the middle of that with, obviously, a very keen understanding of large-capital ships, but then also being the largest provider of unmanned undersea vehicles and then having unmanned surface vehicles, all predicated upon an autonomy software that's really world-class. So from an unmanned standpoint, I do believe there's potential tailwinds there. But I think there's also tailwinds with the intersection between manned and unmanned. When you think about the Minotaur suite that we provide for the Navy, we're the chief developer of that. So I think it's going to continue to evolve. I I think it's going to continue to play right into our sweet spot. And I thank you for the question because I think it's something that's going to be very positive going forward. Then when you think about those opportunities, right, and an administration that is leaning into what we're going to call commercial terms, how do you think about investing your own dollars, owning that IP, and actually getting, I don't know, out of these mid-single-digit cost-plus type of margins for that segment, I don't know, 5, 10 years from now? Is that a possibility? How do you think about investments from that end? I definitely think there's more profitability potential within that segment. I think the IP situation or that argument gets to be a little bit more complex because we actually design our autonomy software to Navy standards, and it's open-source, which allows you to plug and play and bring really good providers into the space. So that is a different argument. That's a different discussion on profitability. I do think that there's upside related to the unmanned space. I do think there's upside related to integrating the software into the product sets. And so that's why we've invested against it. And we will continue to invest against it. And it's probably our highest source of IRAD internally within the organization. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mariana. I am not showing any further questions at this time. I would now like to hand back the call over to Mr. Kastner for any closing remarks. Sure. Thank you. And thanks for joining the call today. Hey, I want to give a shout-out to the CVN 79 team, both the sailors and the shipbuilders. You had a really great trial this week. It was an excellent week to be a shipbuilder. I'm proud of the team. And I think the ship performed very, very well. And we'll keep that momentum towards delivery on CVN 79. So thanks, everybody, for joining, and we'll see you out there. That concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.