Good day, and welcome, everyone, to the Lockheed Martin Q4 and Year-End 2023 Earnings Results Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. If you would like to ask a question, please press one, then zero now. At this time, for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the call over to Maria Ricciardone, Vice President, Treasurer, and Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, Lois, and good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to our Q4 and full year 2023 earnings conference call. Joining me today on the call are Jim Taiclet, our Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, and Jay Malave, our Chief Financial Officer. Statements made in today's call that are not historical facts are considered forward-looking statements and are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor Provisions of Federal Securities law. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Please see today's press release and our SEC filings for a description of some of the factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We've posted the charts on our website today that we plan to address during the call to supplement our comments. These charts also include information regarding non-GAAP measures that may be used in today's call. Please access our website at www.lockheedmartin.com and click on the Investor Relations link to view and follow the charts. With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Jim. Thanks, Maria. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us on our Q4 and full year 2023 earnings call. In 2023, the 122,000 men and women of Lockheed Martin, working closely with our customers, made excellent progress advancing our 21st century security strategy and delivered strong financial results for our shareholders. Turning to chart three, robust demand for our broad portfolio of aircraft, helicopters, satellites, radar systems, and other products, services, and advanced digital technologies boosted backlog to a record $161 billion. Full-year sales of $67.6 billion increased 2% year-over-year and came in stronger than anticipated, as did earnings per share of $27.55. To position the company to take full advantage of these future growth opportunities, we invested more than $3 billion across research and development and capital in 2023. We generated $6.2 billion of free cash flow, as expected, which resulted in year-over-year free cash flow per share percentage growth in the mid-single digits. We returned approximately 145% of free cash flow to shareholders, over $9 billion through dividends and share repurchases combined. Our expectations for Lockheed Martin's 2024 financial outlook include low single-digit growth in sales off of the higher 2023 base and a range of $6 billion-$6.3 billion of free cash flow. Our ongoing dividend and expectation for $4 billion of share repurchases will sustain our focus on returns to shareholders in 2024. We also plan to further advance our vision for 21st century security in the year, as we believe that it is our responsibility at Lockheed Martin to bring the best of U.S. and allied technology and industrial capability to help maintain an effective deterrent to armed conflict and to provide our armed forces with the capabilities to win, should we need to. First, we work closely with our supply chain to apply anti-fragility measures and increase resilience through teaming arrangements to expand sources of supply and by making strategic investments in startups with cutting-edge technologies. For example, we are collaborating with a supplier in which we have a minority investment to accelerate our additive manufacturing progress, reducing material and process dependencies in complex thermal management applications such as heat exchangers. We also set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Forward Edge ASIC to work with major semiconductor fabs to design and manufacture the cutting-edge microprocessors that we need. Second, we led the industry to broaden and strengthen the defense industrial base by making significant progress with our commercial technology collaborators to bring their innovations into the service and national defense. For example, in the Q4, Lockheed Martin worked together with a team including Intel, Verizon, Microsoft, Juniper Networks, Keysight, and Radisys to successfully demonstrate a secure, resilient, hybrid 5G and military data link network in a live field demonstration in Colorado. Our 5G.MiL unified network solutions performed as a tactical and commercial multi-node hybrid network for integrating land, air, and space operations. Together, we demonstrated absolutely cutting-edge system capabilities, performance, and operation for customers in a field setting by combining the best of our technology with those of our commercial teammates. Third, we deepened relationships internationally with partners and allies to ensure that the U.S. can drive maximum interoperability in both industry and in military operations. We are making progress towards a mission-centric approach that uses the latest digital technologies to network aircraft, satellites, command centers, and other key elements together to vastly improve their effectiveness and deterrent value across our U.S. and allied customers. One example from 2023 is work with Australia to develop phase one of AIR6500. That's a joint battle management system and the first of its kind in terms of situational awareness and interoperability... This increases collaboration with trusted allies and partners, can also help reduce the fragility and increase the capacity of the defense production system. Last week, Lockheed Martin was awarded the Guided Weapons Production Capability Risk Reduction Activity contract, which will provide a mechanism for swift knowledge and technology transfer and serve as a pathfinder to manufacturing our suite of guided munitions in Australia with their workforce and with contributions from their society and their economy. Turning briefly now to the status of the U.S. defense budget, the current proposed agreement being discussed with the administration and Congress would support an $886 billion top-line budget, 3% higher than 2023. We will continue to monitor the status of the U.S. budget process and strongly believe that Lockheed Martin programs will continue to be well supported as the process unfolds. I'll now review a few notable highlights from our operations. Starting with Aeronautics and the F-35. We delivered 18 F-35 aircraft in the Technology Refresh two, or TR-2 configuration in the Q4, bringing the 2023 total to 98 jets. We are making continued progress towards delivering the first TR-3 configured aircraft. Today, over 90% of the TR-3 functionality is currently in flight test, and we are further advancing the software integration to include additional aircraft and mission subsystems. While this system maturation process continues to advance, it is taking somewhat more time than we originally anticipated. A Q2 customer acceptance of delivery software remains our target. However, we now believe that a Q3 may be more likely scenario for a TR-3 software acceptance. We are taking the time and attention to get this technology insertion right the first time because it will be absolutely worth it. The step function technological advances of TR-3 will provide our customers with the onboard digital infrastructure of data storage, data processing, and pilot user interface to provide unmatched capabilities for many years to come. These include increased types of capability for air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, advanced sensing, jamming, and cybersecurity capabilities, and more accurate target recognition. To achieve this level of reliable capability for the long run, the resulting aircraft delivery range for 2024 is between 75 and 110, and requires the TR-3 hardware suppliers to keep pace with production demands, both this year and in the future. Given the increasing operational capability and digital connectivity of the aircraft as a cornerstone of all domain operations, international demand for the F-35 remains very strong. In December, the Republic of Korea made the decision to procure 20 additional F-35 aircraft. Also in December, we presented the first F-35A to the Belgian government, which will be one of more than 600 F-35s that will be stationed in Europe across NATO member bases by the 2030s. Aero also continued to advance the F-16, as the first European F-16 training center in Romania was inaugurated in November, in a partnership with Romania and the Netherlands. This center will provide world-class training to enhance mission readiness and ensure safety of flying and operating F-16 fighter jets. In addition, we delivered the first two Slovakian F-16 Block 70 jets in the Q4. Deliveries for Slovakia, totaling 14 aircraft, will continue through 2025. Aero's Skunk Works continues to pioneer groundbreaking innovation as well, and for a change, I can actually tell you about one. The X-59 experimental supersonic aircraft, built by Skunk Works and NASA Aeronautics, was selected as one of Time Magazine's best inventions of 2023. The X-59 is expected to transform the future of commercial supersonic flight over land by quieting the sonic boom, one of aviation's most persistent challenges. The X-59 was unveiled at a rollout ceremony earlier this month and is expected to take first flight later this year. Our MFC business continued to push technological advancements forward as well, through modernization of air and missile defense and precision strike capabilities. In the Q4, we delivered the first precision strike missile, or PrSM, to the U.S. Army and conducted system qualification tests for an extended range, Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS, which will extend the range of the HIMARS system that many of you are familiar with. MFC also delivered the 800th THAAD. That's a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptor to the U.S. government in October. We successfully integrated the PAC-3 Patriot missile with the U.S. Army's new Air and Missile Defense Radar system to defend against cruise missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, as well as hypersonics. International demand for the PAC-3 remains strong, too. This year, Switzerland and Romania each signed letters of offer and acceptance for PAC-3 MSEs, marking 15 partner nations for this program. RMS also saw strong international interest in the Q4. The U.S. Navy awarded Lockheed Martin contracts to produce 8 MH-60 Romeo Seahawk helicopters for the Spanish Navy and 6 of them for the Norwegian government as well. To date, Sikorsky has delivered 330 MH-60 Romeo aircraft to 5 countries, including the United States. 67 more are on order or in production for India, Greece, South Korea, Australia, and now Spain and Norway. Also in the quarter, Sikorsky installed the U.S. Army's improved turbine engine on our RAIDER X, designed for the Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, or FARA, program. This final phase of the RAIDER X build brings us one step closer to completing the system that will support the Army's high-tech future missions requirements, and we anticipate the first flight of RAIDER X in late 2024. Finally, turning to space. United Launch Alliance successfully launched the Vulcan Centaur rocket earlier in January. This launch was the first of two flights required to complete National Security Space certification, and the second planned mission could happen as soon as April. The U.S. Air Force awarded Space a nearly $1 billion contract to develop a new re-entry vehicle for the Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The re-entry vehicle, or MK21A, will be mounted atop the Sentinel. The award follows a technology maturation and risk reduction contract, and the ICBM recapitalization contributes to modernizing strategic deterrence and reinforcing Lockheed Martin's critical technological contributions to the nuclear triad. Last week, the Space Development Agency announced Lockheed Martin was awarded an almost $900 million contract for Tranche 2 Tracking Layer to provide 18 smallsats. 16 of those space vehicles are for missile warning and tracking, and two space vehicles are for missile defense infrared sensors to be on board. The first group of nine satellites is expected to launch in April 2027. A lot going on at Lockheed Martin, all of our operations, and with that, I'll turn the call over to Jay and join you later for questions. Thanks, Jim, and good morning, everyone. Today, I will recap our Q4 and full year 2023 financial results and provide our initial guidance for 2024. As I describe our results, please follow along with the web charts we have posted with our earnings release today. On chart four, we'll start with the Q4 results for consolidated sales and segment operating profit. We had a better-than-expected close to the year, nearly matching last year's record Q4. Sales exceeded internal expectations by close to $1 billion, with the improvement largely due to material, material throughput, leading to a less than 1% year-over-year decline in the quarter and a sign of improving synchronization between Lockheed Martin's demand signals and supply chain fulfillment. The strong finish led to about 2.5% sales growth for the year, which was about $2 billion stronger on an absolute basis than originally expected last January. Overall Segment Operating Profit in the quarter was also better than expected on the higher sales volume and was down 1% year-over-year, due to lower net profit adjustments and lower equity earnings. Book-to-bill was 1.15 for the year, with strength across all four segments. Moving to earnings per share on Chart five, GAAP EPS grew 2% year-over-year, with lower segment profit and higher interest expense more than offset by benefits from the lower share count and fewer mark-to-market losses. Excluding mark-to-market activity and other non-recurring charges, adjusted EPS was up $0.11 year-over-year, or 1%. For the year, adjusted EPS was $27.82, up 2% year-over-year and consistent with the sales growth. The steady improvement this year resulted in higher adjusted EPS by about $1 per share from our original expectations last January. Moving to cash flow on Chart six, we generated $1.7 billion of free cash flow in the quarter and $6.2 billion for the full year, helped by approximately $625 million in working capital reductions in the Q4 from strong and timely conversion of operational milestone achievement to billings and collections. We maintained our commitment to shareholders by returning $3.8 billion through dividends and share repurchases this quarter and over $9 billion for the year, or 145% of our free cash flow. Before getting into the segments, let me pause here to put the numbers in perspective. The key takeaway is that industry growth is crystallizing based on three converging demand cycles. First, to meet support requirements of the near and midterm security environment. Second, to strengthen the effectiveness of existing security platforms and systems with improved sensing, connectivity, interoperability, and embedded intelligence. And lastly, to recapitalize platforms and systems that maintain technological superiority and deterrence over a longer time frame. We expect these demand trends to endure and drive requirements that closely match with Lockheed Martin's advanced technology and systems integration capabilities. The long cycle nature of Lockheed Martin's systems has, in part, led to slower growth, but the 2023 results show that it is materializing, as evidenced by our 7% increase in ending backlog to a record $161 billion, as well as our return to top-line growth a year earlier than originally expected. And we demonstrated our confidence in the company's positioning amongst these demand cycles and multi-year outlook by again delivering strong shareholder returns. Over the past 2 years, we have repurchased about 12% of the current market capitalization.... Okay, back to the segment details, and starting with Aeronautics on Chart seven. Q4 sales at Aero were comparable year over year, with higher volume at Skunk Works and the F-16 production ramp offset by lower volume on F-35, primarily co-production cost timing. As expected, operating profit decreased 7% from the prior year due to lower net profit adjustments. For the year, sales were up 2% as growth in Skunk Works and F-16 more than offset a low single-digit decline on F-35. Profit declined by 1%, primarily due to lower profit adjustments. Book-to-bill for the year was 1.14, leading to 6% growth in the backlog to $60 billion, with nearly 600 aircraft across all production platforms in the backlog. Shifting to Missiles and Fire Control on page eight, sales in the quarter decreased 4% year-over-year, driven by lower volume on PAC-3 due to supplier cost timing, partially offset by production ramps on JASSM and LRASM. Segment operating profit decreased 12% year-over-year as expected, due to the lower volume and loss recognition related to a classified program. For the year, sales decreased 1% year-over-year, as growth in tactical and strike missiles were offset by program transitions at Sensors and Global Sustainment and Integrated Air and Missile Defense supplier cost timing. Operating profit was down 6% due to lower profit adjustments and the classified program loss. Book-to-bill for the year was 1.3, leading to 12% growth in backlog to $32 billion, driven by strong demand for tactical and strike missiles. Turning to Rotary and Mission Systems on page nine, sales declined 2% in the quarter, driven by lower volume across a handful of programs within our Integrated Warfare Systems and Sensors and Training and Logistics Systems lines of business, partially offset by higher sales at Sikorsky from deliveries of international Black Hawks. Operating profit increased 2%, mainly due to favorable contract mix within our IWSS portfolio. For the year, sales were up 1% as growth in IWSS from radar and battle management system ramps more than offset declines in the other lines of business. Operating profit declined 2%, primarily due to lower profit adjustments. Book-to-bill for the year was 1.14, with backlog growing 8% to $38 billion, based on strong order intake on Sikorsky platforms, as well as radar and battle management systems. On Chart 10, as expected, space growth moderated in the quarter, with sales increasing 3% year-over-year, driven by higher volume in strategic and missile defense, primarily from Next Gen Interceptor, as that program advances from its successful completion of preliminary design review towards the critical design review milestone. Operating profit increased 31% compared to 2022, driven by higher net profit adjustments across the portfolio. For the year, sales increased 9%, with growth across all lines of businesses, and profit grew by 10% as benefits from higher profit adjustments and volume more than offset lower ULA equity income. Space backlog grew again in Q4 and remains at a solid $30 billion, or almost 2-2.5x sales. Now shifting to the outlook for 2024 on page 11. Before discussing our expectations, I'd like to highlight a few key assumptions embedded within our guidance for the year. First, based on recent progress made in budget negotiations, we assume the U.S. government passes appropriations bills by March, consistent with the funding levels within the President's FY 2024 budget request, equating to approximately 3% top-line growth for the DoD. On F-35, as Jim stated, we're targeting between 75-110 deliveries commencing in the Q3. In addition, we anticipate sufficient progress being made on the MFC classified program to result in the recognition of losses from two production lots, amounting to approximately 50 basis points of margin headwind against our consolidated results. With that framework in mind, we anticipate sales between $68.5 billion-$70 billion, with a midpoint that represents approximately 2.5% growth. At the midpoint, we expect growth in three of the four segments, with MFC leading the way at 7% growth from its strong munitions backlog. At the high end, all four segments would grow. Segment Operating Profit is expected to be between $7.175 billion and $7.375 billion, down at the midpoint, as lower expected profit adjustments and the MFC Classified losses more than offset volume benefits. Excluding the MFC Classified Program, 50 basis points impact, underlying margins in the balance of the portfolio are expected to be approximately 11%. Our net FAS/CAS pension adjustment declines around $400 million from last year to a little less than $1.7 billion for 2024, due primarily to lower FAS pension income. The pension headwind, along with lower segment profit and higher interest expense, lead to lower expected EPS year-over-year to be between $25.65 and $26.35. For purposes of clarity, on page 12, we've included an EPS walk at the midpoint of the range. Benefits from volume mix provide about $0.55, with the impact of the MFC classified program losses netting down segment operating profit to a $0.35 decline. Total FAS/CAS pension is about a $1.40 headwind, with higher taxes and interest more than offset by the lower share count. Our free cash flow estimate for 2024 ranges between $6 billion and $6.3 billion. So bringing it all together, we expect continued sales growth in 2024 off the higher 2023 base. Some profit and EPS pressure based on loss recognition timing, but with continued solid cash generation, and capping it off with another year of capital deployment. So in summary, on page 13, we closed out 2023 with record backlog and positive momentum that will carry us into 2024, with a line of sight to sustained out-year growth in sales, profit, and Free Cash Flow. Of course, we will continue to invest in 1 LMX as part of our strategy to ensure our people, processes, and systems remain the most advanced in the industry, and we remain committed to disciplined and dynamic capital returns to shareholders. With that, Lois, let's open up the call for Q&A. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press one, then zero on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone or annunciator indicating that you've been placed in the queue. You may remove yourself from queue at any time by pressing the one, then zero again. If you are using a speakerphone or a Bluetooth, please pick up your handset before pressing the number. Once again, if you have a question, please press one, then zero at this time. Our first question is from Myles Walton from Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. I was hoping to lead off with Aero and the F-35 in particular, and the margins, number one, that you're looking for in 2024 are down about 40 basis points. Is that primarily on lower incentives as a result of the delays in delivery? And then more broadly, for the supply chain on the F-35, given the absence of deliveries, can you continue to simply build inventory, or is there a point at which you'd actually have to slow down the supply chain? Thanks. Okay, thanks, Myles. On the margins for F-35, what we're seeing in 2024 are lower favorable profit adjustments. And so, it's really twofold. One of it is the F-35, where, as we make progress on the TR-3 program, as well as getting ourselves into production, it's difficult to take risk and rely on risk retirements as we're still facing this program and the progress we're making there. And so we assume that the profit adjustments slow down in 2024 on the F-35 program. There's also some headwinds on the C-130 program, where, we're seeing the effects of inflation and also some disruption related to supply chains and pressures that we've had there. And so when you look at that decline year over year, you're talking about 30 basis points, let's say, half and half between C-130 and F-35. On the production cadence for F-35, you know, yes, we feel pretty confident in where we are through the Q3. And to the extent that there were any delays beyond that, we would have to revisit our production cadence at that point in time. But right now, all signs are pointing to our production and delivery restart here in the Q3. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And the next question is from the line of Scott Deuschle from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Right. Hey, good morning. Good morning. Jay, I hate to ask on 2025, but at a high level, is the 10.5% total company margin guide for 2024 the right jumping off point for thinking about 2025? Or is it the, you know, 11% underlying margin, or is it the 10.8% margin you did in 2023? Just in terms of identifying jumping off point for thinking about 2025. Thank you. Yeah, I think you do have to start at the 10.5 to jump off. And, you know, we do have a line of sight and a path to get overall back to 11%, including the absorption of these losses on the MFC Classified Program, but it's gonna be a gradual march back up. And so I wouldn't expect it to snap back in 2025. I would expect there to be, you know, in the range of, say, 10-20 basis points of improvement starting in 2025, and that to continue to grow at that rate until we get back up to 11%. Thank you. And your next question is from Gavin Parsons, from UBS Equity Research. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Good morning. Jay, what does the pension contribution schedule look like beyond 2024? And do you have any opportunity to pull that forward or use the balance sheet to offset that? Yeah, a good question. That's something that we've contemplated. Just where we are from a baseline perspective, zero contributions required in 2024. 2025, we're looking at in the range of about $1 billion of required contributions there. And so, you know, we're always looking at whether or not there's an opportunity to pull forward. As you mentioned, the utilization of our strong balance sheet to potentially do that. We haven't made any firm decisions on that, but that's definitely an opportunity that's under consideration for us. Thanks. Yep. Thank you. And our next question is from the line of Pete Skibitski from Alembic Global. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, guys. Morning. Jim or Jay, can you give us a sense for how much the 2024 guide is impacted by what looks like a, you know, on the order of a six-month delay here to the government's budget and, you know, still a little bit of lack of clarity on the supplementals? Yeah, for the most part, Pete, it's not really impacted significantly. You know, in our case, we're able to build up inventories, and then as we get the funding, we're able to take that to sales. And so for the most part, we've kept all of our processes intact. That becomes more difficult if the process extends beyond March, and that's why I was very clear in my comments that we're dependent on this happening, that the budget getting clarity and finalization in March. Because going beyond that just makes it difficult for things to get on contract, and you run out of runway in the year to convert those into sales. Okay, appreciate it. And then anything on big awards you're expecting in 2024 and maybe the timing of NGAD? Well, you know, just some key things that we're talking about from sales perspective. You know, Lot 18, 19 is a big one for the F-35 program. We also have some long-lead F-35 awards that we would be expecting as well. We've got things, there are some classified contracts across the portfolio. I can't really get into any beyond that, but you're talking multi-billions of dollars there that we have in our order plan for this year. There are things like PAC-3 orders, which is multiple billions of dollars there for FY-24 requirements. Also, I would say hypersonics at Space, particularly on CPS, is another one that could approach $2 billion. So there's a number there. You know, as those get clicked off in the year, we'll certainly report on those and keep you apprised on the progress. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Jason Gursky from Citi Research. Please go ahead. Yeah, hey, Jay. Just a quick clarification, then one for Jim, and sorry if I missed this, but the deliveries that you're expecting for the F-35 this year, with you know the acceptance on [TR-3] happening potentially in the Q3, can you discuss a little bit about the cadence throughout the year? Do you expect to deliver some F-35s throughout the year, and maybe, you know, the older version of it in the H1 of the year? Just trying to get a sense of whether you're truly doing 75-100 aircraft in the H2 of the year, and what does that tell us about, you know, the potential for deliveries in 2025? Can you get to 200 in that year as a bit of a catch up? And then, Jim, for you, just overall expectations on, you know, bookings, book-to-bill, for this next year based on the pipeline that you're seeing. And, maybe just kind of update us on your current thoughts on the competitive environment and, you know, fixed price versus, you know, cost plus, and, and, and, how you, how the industry and, and you, you, you all specifically are kind of reacting to, the contracting environment and what's being asked of you, and, and, and, whether you're toggling back more towards, less risky programs. Thanks. So let me get into the deliveries. Jason, you know, we do have a handful of deliveries we expect in the H1, but for the most part, you're talking 90% of the anticipated deliveries actually will happen in the back half of the year. And so I think that's just the way to think about it, just a handful, really, in the H1. You know, maybe I'll kind of give a little bit of color and then hand it over to Jim. For the year, we still expect there to be strong demand, and we have a pretty solid line of sight to a book-to-bill that would be above one yet again in 2024. And so, you know, obviously, these things have to materialize, the budget has to be approved, and all these things have to happen, but the line of sight is there for continued growth in orders as well as in our backlog. A couple of things, too, and then you've just turned to the question about cost plus. The interesting thing is that part of the margin pressure that we saw in 2023 was due to mix. Our percent of sales of cost type contracts went from 38% in 2022 to 41% in 2023. That in itself caused some margin pressure of about 20 basis points relative to what we were anticipating in the year. And so we're actually seeing an uptick in cost plus contracts, we think, which we think kind of bodes well in terms of risk tolerance in the way some of these stronger technological types of programs will be contracted for. And so I think that is, generally speaking, a favorable trend. Well, the other thing that we're, you know, just to talk about what we're thinking about contractually, and Jim has really led the way here, is that we just are employing a lot more pricing discipline than we have more recently. And we're looking at things and ensuring that there's just a more analytical support for the way we approach pricing, that we capture any types of technological advantages that we may have. Also, that as we make an assessment of risk, A, the contracting vehicle is appropriate to that risk, but that our pricing accounts for that risk as well. And so, that's the way we've been approaching things for really this year going into 2024, and I'll hand it over to Jim. Yeah, sure, Jay. So look, there's a near-term and a long-term approach that we're taking to government contracting with industry. And the near-term piece of it is a lot of what Jay just described, really matching the pricing and the risk profile within our company, I'll say. Now, I don't know what other companies are doing or how they're making their decisions, but, you know, we've recognized, and I've said to our senior customer base, you know, look, we're in a monopsony environment here, meaning there's a single buyer, you know, for the most part, for almost everything that we make, or Boeing Defense makes, or General Dynamics makes. And, you know, to, I guess, the government's credit in one-- in a way, they've been taking advantage of that monopsony power, if you will, over the industry. And what's happened as a result of that over, you know, the last number of years or even decades, is you have lots of programs which are over cost, cost overruns, right? Whether fixed price or cost plus, and you have schedule delays. Because what that monopsony environment can do is give so much power to the buyer that some of the competitors feel that there are must-win programs for them, that they will take, you know, tremendous risk on cost and pricing, and tremendous cost on the ability to technically deliver these capabilities. So when you multiply those two risks together, you get a lot of cost overruns, a lot of schedule delays, programs, you know, reviewed by Congress, et cetera. So I've been advocating in the near term, and certainly implementing with our company, we don't have any must-win programs at Lockheed Martin anymore. If we have a good business opportunity with a balanced price risk, profile, we will bid. If not, we will not bid. If we hit our limit parameters, we won't go beyond those. A competitor may win, so be it. And so that's our near-term approach to this. The longer-term approach is, in addition to delivering products that we and our cohorts in the traditional defense industry do so well, we need to start migrating towards delivering capabilities, right? So capability would include either products that are already fielded and/or new products, but especially digital technologies, which is why we are collaborating so with so much effort with commercial tech companies, large and small. Because we can value price capabilities, right? If we sell products, and that's all we do as an industry, we are kind of locked into the FAR, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as it is written today, which means even a fixed price contract, you've got to provide all your cost information, right? And you have to do it often every year, even with a multi-year fixed price, and there can be adjustments. So we want to move, you know, as briskly as we can as an industry with our commercial partners to their kind of pricing, which is value-based subscription. That's gonna take time, it's gonna take changes in government, it's gonna probably take literally acts of Congress to do it. But that will be the thing that will make our industry healthier on one hand, the traditional defense and aerospace industry, but it'll also invite in the commercial tech companies who are basically, if you look at the broad scope, investing 10x what we are in R&D. And we want to bring a lot of that 10x R&D and all that talent over into the, you know, into the Defense Department as part of their supply chain, but it's really tough under the FAR for those companies to put time and attention and effort into, into DoD. So that's the long term, a long-term solution, but the s- the near-term solution will also continue. Thank you. Next question is from Douglas Harned, from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. On, as you look at Tech Refresh 3, this delay, and then going longer, as you really want to build out the full kind of Block 4 capabilities, which continue to seem to expand. You know, first, as Tech Refresh 3 takes longer, and then as you look toward the kind of multi-year trajectory on Block 4 implementation, how do you see delays here affecting your production rate, knowing that you've been trying to produce sort of at the full 156 type rate, but, you know, can that continue as you look at these challenges, if they get more difficult? You know, look, Doug, it's Jim. I think we can continue at this rate. You know, demand from the U.S. services and our international customers, you know, air forces, navies, et cetera, around the world, is they need the aircraft, right? They've got to recapitalize the planes that they're still flying, that I was trying to get when I went to pilot training in 1983, right? So this is essential that this production line keep up. It's basically the recapitalization of the, you know, the allied fighter aircraft force is the F-35. And so I think the key to that is full transparency and, you know, realizing the reality of the situation. When you're trying to drive this much technology into an air vehicle, you've got to be honest about the schedule. What can industry do? What can the test and evaluation community handle in the various militaries to accept that technology? And what's the supply chain capacity? And we're being, you know, brutally honest with our services and our joint program offices to what we think industry can do with us and our airplane. And industry is who makes the radar. Industry is who makes the EOS, the Electro-Optical System. The industry is who makes the electronic warfare suite. It's not us. So we have to be brutally honest as an industry, and with our suppliers' inputs to that, with the government and say, what is feasible to keep the production rate up? I think that's starting to get traction. I hope it gets more traction because we cannot afford to be over-optimistic in the ability to deliver these technologies as rapidly as one might like. There are real technical and physical challenges to doing this, and our commitment to the government, me to the service chiefs and our allies, is I will tell you honestly what we think industry can do with the jet. And if you want to push it beyond that, I'll tell you what the risks are and what the costs might be to do it, but let's agree on a feasible executable plan for exactly, Doug, what you talked about. Thank you. Your next question is from Sheila Kahyaoglu from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. Good morning. Jim, I don't want to talk about what happened in 1983, but in terms of the puts and takes for MFC, if you could just talk about the 7% top-line growth you guys have. What are the biggest program drivers there between missile defense and tactical, and just on the margins, you've already, you know, highlighted the 50 basis points from the classified programs. Are there any offsets? And I really appreciate your, your commentary about the government and how you plan to sell to them. So I was just thinking, where do you think that'll manifest itself in its portfolio, in your portfolio the fastest? Is it MFC, and specifically, can you give any specifics? Yeah, sure. I'll start with the growth drivers. You know, for MFC, they're what you would expect, tactical and strike missiles. So the guided weapons, the HIMARS, JASSM, LRASM, all those will continue towards their march to these ramps for by 2025, and in certain cases, 2026 and 2027. So that is the largest driver of the growth. And that's followed by integrated air and missile defense, really on the back of PAC-3. So we'll start seeing a more significant spike in PAC-3 activity and deliveries over the next few years here as we get to 550 by 2025 and then ultimately 650 by 2027. So those are the two, really the two businesses, the lines of business within MFC, that are going to be driving it, which is really should be no surprise. And then when it gets to, you know, moving towards a value pricing model, Sheila, the first place that's already starting to happen is in command and control, command situational awareness, information, advantages, our customers would call it. So those are largely digital services, right? You know, you've got, you know, sensors on satellites, aircraft, ships, radars, out, you know, scanning the sky, infrared, sensors in space, you know, looking for plumes of heat when a missile is launched, things like that. That's data, right? So how do we gather all the data from our sensors, whatever domain they happen to be in, land, air, space, et cetera, how do we make intelligent data fusion and then present commanders and decision-makers with options using AI and other digital services? So, you know, this will be probably the first place where we can value price, because my goal is to bring in commercial technology to do that digital, you know, digital data fusion, evaluation, AI application, et cetera. As I said a minute ago, commercial industry is investing, you know, 10x what our aerospace and defense industry could invest in these areas, and we need to take advantage of that. The only way they're going to participate in a material fashion in that industry is value pricing. They're not going to provide cost information. It's just not how their industry works. You know, they're not delivering an airplane that you can add up all the costs that it took to make that airplane and give it to the government, so they can give you the margin on top. So these command and control systems, and they're real programs, by the way. Defensive Bomb is a program like this, AIR6500 is one that I mentioned, and also something called Joint Fires Network, which will be deployed in the INDOPACOM command of the US. So this is where I think it will start. And then as we look at mission roadmaps that we've established and drawn out inside of Lockheed Martin, and we're now sharing and have been sharing with the U.S. services and DOD, we're looking for capability gaps where digital technology can really make a difference, right? So I'll give you one really quick one. So if we could get a direct feed from, you know, an orbiting satellite scanning a wide swath of the Pacific to find ships and actually directly provide that data link and that information to aircraft flying in the area, then those aircraft can vector towards those targets and turn on their radars and get a much more precise location and maybe even a tracking solution to sink the ship if that's what's needed. And so that's a mission gap, a capability gap that we would have in an anti-ship mission. And so, you know, how do we value price that? Because that's basically a data management exercise, which requires what we call 5G.MIL. It requires an artificial intelligence solution within it, and it requires, you know, the management of that data at various classifications, which is something, you know, not many companies can do besides those in our industry. So we can value price something like that, and I think it'd be a capability gap that would be interesting to the Department of Defense, and they might accept value pricing. But, you know, not to take too much time on this topic, but one of the things that we're really advocating for at Lockheed Martin, and we've got some friends of the court trying to work with us on this, is how do we set up an adjacent acquisition process in the Department of Defense to its traditional acquisition process, designed and reconstituted and originated to purchase digital services versus platforms and products, which is what the traditional acquisition system is built to do. That is a heavy lift. It is very complicated. It's what I kind of referenced earlier, where you're literally going to need an act of Congress to do this. If we want to value price as an industry, bring in commercial partners at scale, I think the government needs to consider and actually go do this with us. Let me just circle back, Sheila, on the, on the margins in your question. I'll use MFC as a, as an example in 2024. When you look at their headwind, their, their headwind is about 200 basis points of, of margin compression in the year 2024. The, the MFC classified program is, is actually accounted for 230, and so the rest of their business is actually expanding by 30 basis points. And so they're doing everything we would expect them to do in their core business. In general, across all of Lockheed Martin, the way we're approaching these headwinds is really threefold. First, we're just keeping a tight lid on overhead and indirect costs and streamlining that cost structure where the opportunities exist. The second is we're driving cost reduction in our direct cost base through supply chain optimization, factory productivity, and also One LMX driven efficiencies. And then lastly, we talked about a little bit earlier in the call, is just making sure that we're employing pricing discipline across our bid and proposals. And so those three together will help us drive to a better result in the future and give us confidence that we'll be able to expand margins even with these headwinds. Thank you. Your next question is from the line of Seth Seifman from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Okay, thanks very much, and good, good morning, everyone. Maybe one, one clarification and, and one question. Jay, on F-35, at the end of 2024, should we think about there being maybe 120 undelivered aircraft in inventory based on, you know, the production rate, the, the, you know, 150+ and, and the deliveries you've told us? That's, that's the clarification. And, and, and that inventory will have to be worked out over the subsequent year or two. And then as far as the question goes, I think you talked about 10-20 basis points of segment margin expansion in 2025. You know, if we thought about only one lot exercised on classified missile, that's probably 25 basis points. The margin in aeronautics seems pretty depressed in 2024, so, you know, you'd think there may be some potential for expansion there. And you just talked about the efforts that you're making across the company to support margins. Are there other discrete headwinds that we're not aware of, that wouldn't allow, you know, that would prevent more than that kind of 10-20 basis points that you outlined? Yeah. Let me start with that question first, and I'll come back to the F-35. Just on the 2025 margins going forward, yes, it would be essentially one lot versus two. However, you've got to take into account the volumes that are in that lot versus the volumes that were in these first two lots. And so you really think about it from a gross headwind, it doesn't necessarily change all that much because you're, there's more in there. And so that's what's keeping the pressure. You know, there's not just an automatic lift because we're going from two lots to one lot in a subsequent year. On the F-35, I mean, I think what you, the way you talked about it, Seth, is right. Anywhere between 100-120 aircraft is in terms of undelivered against the 156 type of expected delivery rate, is the right way to think about it, yes. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Ronald Epstein from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Question. Hey, Ron. I'll do the question first. What are you thinking about the opportunity for the Black Hawk going forward? Meaning, I don't know. We've kind of heard there's some challenges on Future Vertical Lift, and what opportunities does that open to you for the Black Hawk? Ron, it's Jim. Look, look, the Black Hawk and, you know, I've gotten to fly it autonomously and by hand, actually, I think has a lot of potential. There's interest in Congress for modernization of the Black Hawk. There's a huge fleet out there. And by adding some of these digital capabilities like autonomy and AI to the Black Hawk, which is a really reliable platform that's out flying in units today in great numbers and across our allies, that's a real, I think, value opportunity for the armies, and Marine Corps and others that use the helicopter. So I do think there's a lot of upside there. I don't want to comment on anybody else's programs or how well or not they may be doing, but this is a proven scaled vehicle, which with digital technology, upgrade, and insertion, can be very, very versatile. And that can be done much more rapidly than new production of new aircraft. So I do think that there's upside there. Now, the services and Congress have to agree to that and fund those modernizations and keep those units flying, and that'll be up to them. But we're trying to provide them every opportunity to make that decision by inserting digital and other technologies, like autonomy, that will really make the aircraft much more capable in doing missions, like air evacuation, resupply of a hot landing zone. Things like that, that when you put it into the entire equation of completing a mission, it will be a good value to consider it. Thank you. And our next question is from the line of Kristine Liwag from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hey, Jay, Jim, I mean, there's been discussion in the public markets about the depletion of U.S. missiles and munitions and a potential shortage. I mean, that said, from your commentary to date, it sounds like supply chain issues continue to linger, weighing on the company's ability to convert the demand into revenue. So, can you talk more about the additional actions you're taking to improve the supply chain's ability to get products through the system? And what metrics are you monitoring, and how much upside could you see in 2024 if things improve? I'll make a couple of comments and ask Jay to follow. The steps that we're taking to take the fragility out of the missile production system are varied. One of them is, and it's very specific, we are endeavoring to stand up a third solid rocket motor supplier in the United States that can be additive to the industry supply chain we have today, which hasn't been performing well, right? That's one piece. More broadly, we're using additive manufacturing, and we're bringing in more varied suppliers into the supply chain so that we can get the materials we need from a more diverse set of group of suppliers outside of solid rocket motors. And also, we're looking at international opportunities to build this equipment, including in Australia and in Poland. U.K. and others are kind of on tap for co-production or joint ventures with us to do these things. And Germany, I should mention as well. So these are some of the approaches we're taking, and it really comes down to these three areas, which is, how can we, on one hand, take basic steps in, you know, antifragility to, you know, more suppliers, more diversity, on the supply chain, different labor pools, better training, those kinds of things where it's just basic. Secondly, how can we insert technology and to make this a more reliable production system, which we just mentioned. And then thirdly, is how do we get international countries and take advantage of their labor forces, their supply, sub-supply chains, et cetera, and get them into the production system? We look at this in all three areas of our, our core company strategy and apply it to missile production. Jay, anything you want to add? Yeah, I'll just say, you know, over the last year, Christine, you know, we've, we've deployed resources, so we haven't just sat back and waiting for improvement. Depending on the supplier, depending on the issues, we have deployed manufacturing engineering resources, we've deployed quality engineering resources and program management resources, as well as in certain cases, we've actually deployed hourly workers to support suppliers in certain cases. And so we've taken an all-hands-on-deck approach, where we've seen the issues become more significant, and we've done everything we can to support these suppliers and help them get through. I would expect that to continue where we see, you know, these, these bottlenecks. But as, as I mentioned earlier, we, we did see some general improvement. We are expecting that improvement to continue. You know, in terms of potential upside, what I would point you to is that if we're able to unlock and see a little bit better performance, then that would drive us to the high end of our sales, profit, and EPS range. Thank you. Our next question is from Matthew Akers, from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hey, good morning. Thanks, guys. Could you touch on F-16 real quick, just latest thoughts on the ramp right here, and also just margins on that program, how that compares to the segment now and then sort of, you know, do they get better over time as you kind of come back down the learning curve? Yeah, so we delivered 5 aircraft in 2023. We would expect that to triple, or potentially quadruple here in 2024. And so we're the ramp is in certainly in full force. We've got over 30 aircraft that are in WIP as we ended the year. And so you know, that is, I think, from a delivery standpoint, increasing the production cadence has all, is all trending well. From a profitability standpoint, you know, you may recall we've had some pressure because it's taken us longer to get to this point, and so that put some pressure on our initial contracts. Here, as we fully deliver those out and deliver on the subsequent contracts, we will see profitability improve on the F-16 over the next few years. Our next question is from the line of George Shapiro from Shapiro Research. Please go ahead. Yes, hello. Hey, George. I was looking at a longer-term perspective here. If I look at the margins, like from 10 years ago, you know, MFC made 18%, aeronautics made 11%, space made 13. So we're obviously down in all of those categories, overall, maybe 200 basis points from 10 years ago. So my question is, was this due to a lot of the fixed price development, more aggressive bidding, and now you're trying to change that, so when we look towards 2025, we actually could see margins go up from where they'd be in 2024? Or kind of, are they just lower margins overall that we expect to see from what we used to see? George, hey, it's Jim here. I think the story I told a little bit earlier today is what caused that. You know, there's margin compression in the whole industry here, you know, driven by the monopsony customer, if you will. So, you know, they got pretty good at figuring out how to use their position, you know, in the Porter analysis of how they should negotiate contracts. And what I think you're seeing is, you know, boards and management of companies in our traditional space, I'll call it, are understanding this now. The management tends to not necessarily senior management tends not to necessarily be historically wedded to this business model, and looking at other ways to run these companies. And so, we are taking the shareholders' interest into account in all the things we talked about, which should help improve our margins, even though it may result in some, you know, difficult discussions with some of the customer base. We're prepared to do that. But I think over the last 10 years, as you said, there's been a decline, and it needs to reverse to have a healthy industry. Okay. Hey, Lois, I think we're at the top of the hour, so I'm just gonna turn it back over to Jim for some final thoughts. Okay. Thanks, Maria. So over the past 12 months, again, I mentioned the people of Lockheed Martin have worked relentlessly to advance this vision we have for 21st-century security and transform our company internally. And they created, produced, and delivered cutting-edge capabilities that are focused on what the Defense Department says is its own strategy that they call integrated deterrence. And we're trying to maintain our company values along the way, and that's to do what's right, respect others, and perform with excellence. And all this yields positive results for our employees that work here, our customers, and our suppliers, and especially our shareholders. So thanks again for joining us today, and we look forward to speaking with you on our next earnings call in April. Lois, that concludes the call. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference for today. Thank you for your participation and for using AT&T Teleconference service. You may now disconnect.