Morning. Good morning, everyone. I'm Kristine Liwag, Morgan Stanley's Aerospace and Defense Analyst. Very excited to host our next panel here with Lockheed Martin. Very excited to have on stage with us Jim Taiclet, Chairman and CEO, and Evan Scott, CFO. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you. Maybe we could kick off. Evan, you've got some statements to read? Yes, thank you. Statements made today that are not historical fact are considered forward-looking statements and are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Please see Lockheed Martin's SEC filings, including our 2024 annual report and Form 10-K, and subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for a description of some of the factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Thank you. Thanks, Evan. Jim, not sure if you'd like to start with some remarks? Sure. First of all, I want to reemphasize that Evan and I and our team are heavily focused on financial and operational performance. It's our number one priority. In just the past few months, I've had four overseas trips to inspect our production lines, to talk to local management, and to meet with customers, and another seven field domestic visits for the same purpose, whether it's the Chief of Staff of the Army going down to Camden with me, or the Chief of Staff of the Air Force being shown the latest classified aspects of F-35 in Fort Worth. We are very fully focused on customers, cost, quality, and schedule to get our financial performance where we want it to be. Secondly, our results in 2025 that we expect and our guidance are, as a result of our focus on operations, 4% - 5% revenue growth, a backlog at the midpoint of the year at $167 billion of backlog, and the free cash flow at the midpoint, we're projecting $6.7 billion this year. Next year, without pension cash contributions, we expect $7 billion of free cash flow out of the operation next year. Those are the kind of financial performance goals we have and we expect to hit. We also don't expect any additional charges on the classified aeronautics and the classified MFC programs that we've disclosed over the last few months. We're also intending to return to shareholders again $6 billion this year, 2025, about half dividends and half share repurchases. Finally, our major products and systems are performing extremely well in actual battlefield conditions. The U.S. and international demand for some of those key systems is increasing dramatically, will add to the backlog, and giving our customers confidence in our company. We could talk more about those later if people are interested, but our products and systems are performing at the highest level in real conditions for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and guardians. Great. Wonderful. Maybe Jim, kicking off, you know, what you said about the U.S. environment. We're now nine months into this new administration. What have been the most profound changes in your eyes regarding the Defense Department, or I guess now the Department of War, especially since Trump has taken office, and what's stayed consistent? Ultimately, how do you assess this environment for Lockheed Martin? Do you see this as net benefit, net negative? What's different about the current administration is their focus on speed and effectiveness and actually openness to change in legacy processes and systems on the government side. I've been very encouraged by their openness to input from us, and I'm assuming broader industry, on what those kind of changes that could be made in the Department of War to speed up acquisition process, to get capability to field quicker, to have the insertion of AI and other digital technologies come into the force. I'm very encouraged by that. What's the same is the appreciation, I think, across the last two administrations, including this one, of the performance of our systems and our products in real situations directed by the president, such as the attack on the nuclear sites in Iran. The only way that those attacks could be successful was, first of all, the Northrop Grumman B-2, which is a fantastic airplane. It does its mission and did its mission well. The integration of information and data over a period of time to actually make that targeting and the planning and the execution of that missile mission possible, and the fighter escorts of F-22 and F-35, which enabled the B-2s to get into the most heavily, potentially one of the most heavily defended air defense systems in the world and in Iran over Tehran and other key cities, and penetrate it without being seen, without any fighter launches against the B-2s to try to shoot them down, and also the suppression of enemy air defenses by the F-35. President Trump actually illuminated all of this in a couple of his speeches recently. This is the kind of performance that they're expecting and used to from Lockheed Martin. That is consistent. The net of all of this, to me, is a significant benefit to our company and our industry for a couple of reasons. One, we are being heard. We industries are being heard, and there's a willingness to change on the government side. There's a number of people in senior Pentagon positions that have extensive financial markets and/or business experience that are open to change. We have leadership that's open to change, insisting on it, and trying to work the bureaucracy and move the bureaucracy forward. They're taking inputs and advice from people like us, which is, again, a net benefit because I do think that now that we're well into the 21st century, the Department of War needs to move from a 20th-century process and systems construct to a 21st-century process and systems construct. I think this administration, again, net benefit to our industry, is ready to do that. Thanks, Jim. That's very helpful color. Also, I agree, the F-35's performance in those missions was under the radar. Yeah, that is. Apologies. Maybe the Trump administration recently announced they want to take a 10% stake in Intel and has hinted at the possibility of taking other strategic investments for other sectors. What, in your mind, are the potential impacts this could have on the defense industry? We continue to have, as we did in the first term of the Trump administration, a very strong and open two-way relationship with President Trump and his senior administrative officials. That is encouraging to us, as I said. I'm very optimistic about how the interactions between, whether it's our industry, our company, the Department of Defense, and the White House are going to play out for our company. I'm very encouraged by that. There is openness to doing things differently. We're in that conversation, and I'm encouraged and optimistic about how this is all going to play out over time. On the budget side, we're seeing the DOD modernization budget potentially up over 20% year- over- year in fiscal year 2026. Can you help us understand what's happening in the budget growth, and how does that match with Lockheed's expectation of low single-digit to mid-single-digit top-line growth through 2027? There seems to be quite a big gap there. Sure. When we laid out our prior growth profile, we talked about kind of low single-digit with the potential to get mid-single-digit. Since then, we've seen a lot of very positive trends. I think one very important is the budget environment. We do see our products very well supported, both in just the main programs that we track to, plus some interesting new budget elements that I think are going to be interesting and impactful for the future, such as for the first time you see the Navy programming PAC-3 munitions as part of their budget. With PAC-3 being such a key Army munition, the opportunity to have that field on the Navy side, I think, is a very big opportunity for us in the future and for the warfighter. You could see additional funding for the ARRW, or aerial hypersonics munition, as well. We currently are very well positioned on the Navy and Army side from a hypersonics munition. This would give us an air-launched Air Force potential production contract as well. I think all across we're seeing strong budget growth, with I think you've seen some stated interest in ramping additionally on the munition side, particularly on the front end of Golden Dome, where those very same products could be very impactful. You know, that Golden Dome comment's probably a great segue to that. The Golden Dome is starting to take more shape. Can you talk about what the opportunity is set here and how much of that incremental $25 billion is adjustable to Lockheed Martin? On the whole, Golden Dome is tailor-made for Lockheed Martin, or Lockheed Martin is tailor-made for Golden Dome. It's on every major dimension of the deployment of this kind of a system over time. It starts with the space layer. We have, on orbit today and in production for tomorrow, key space sensors that would be basically the linchpin of Golden Dome, missile launch sensors, missile tracking systems that provide that information, that data flow back into our command and control systems, which we also provide for integrated air and missile defense, like Aegis and like the Air Force Command and Control System. We've actually been deploying a fully integrated air and missile defense command and control system in places like the UAE, in Guam for the United States, and also in Hawaii for INDOPACOM, which is the U.S. command that operates in that part of the world. We are the leader in the integrated air and missile defense and also the leader in applying artificial intelligence and advanced networking, including 5G, into that system. We have the sensors in space. We have the leading command and control systems today. We also have the most advanced ground radars that Evan was talking about earlier. There are a lot of acronyms for them, like LRDR, etc., etc. These are the most effective radars for both tactical and strategic tracking of incoming weapons into our country and therefore closing the fire control loop with those radars for our weapons, which are PAC-3 and THAAD, also lasers and distributed and directed energy weapons as well, which we've been developing and testing one in the Red Sea right now with the Navy, a laser weapon that can shoot down drones multiple times without using the PAC-3 or other or SM-3 or whatever missile you have to do that. We've got all those leadership positions and all those major layers of Golden Dome, and we're very much proven to be a systems integrator. For example, we work with our industry colleagues on this, right? Whether it's RTX missiles for the Navy, the SM-3 or SM-6, whether it's Northrop Grumman for the Army's command and control system, which with INDOPACOM we integrated the Army's, the Air Force's, and the Navy's with theirs. We have the ability to work with our industry and outside our industry to bring whatever technology we need to this. The last thing I'll point out about Golden Dome is we have successfully executed something that I would consider part of Golden Dome, which is protecting our forces in Qatar at Al Udeid Air Base about two months ago after the strike in Iran, which was, again, you know, by F-35 and F-22 with the B-2 bomber. The retaliation for that from the Iranians was to attack a U.S. base in the Middle East with American soldiers, sailors, marines, et cetera, on that base. They were attacking our forces, our people. It just happened to not be in the homeland region. It happened to be in Qatar where they were deployed. All of the missiles that were fired and drones that were fired at Al Udeid Air Base and our people were eliminated. Not a single life was lost. We didn't lose a single person. We didn't lose a single aircraft. It stopped the retaliation. I think if those products and systems wouldn't have been 100% successful, we'd be in a hot war in the Middle East right now. That's how important these missions are. That's how critical it is that the companies that are involved in this can execute at scale reliably. We want to welcome, you know, large and small digital tech companies into this. We want to welcome large and small startups that are trying to invent new products that might fit into one of our systems or our mission systems. We want that to happen, but you've got to have this layer of the five prime contractors to actually integrate at scale reliably at a theater level. That will always be the place of these companies. We intend to lead these companies together with us into the digital age. That's really helpful context. You know, that's a pretty telling performance, 100% result. I mean, speaks for itself. Maybe pivoting back to the F-35, you know, there's been a lot of headlines with the F-35. Maybe we'll parse it out first, what's happening in the U.S., and then we'll talk about the international component. For the U.S., we've seen lower units of procurement for fiscal year 2026. How do we think about what the U.S. government customer wants for the program? Is this a new normal where we see lower rates? What's the normalized production for that program in the U.S.? Normalized production has been, and we expect it to be, 156 units per year. When we say production, that includes our entire supply chain, which is a two to three-year lead time, right? When there's variability, and there always has been variability in the U.S. budgeting process between Congress, the administration, the Pentagon, the services, who are all trying to take a top-line budget and parse it into something that will fit with their priorities, there's going to be puts and takes on every program every year. We weren't even getting orders for THAAD missiles at our production rate a couple of years ago. Now they're asking us to double or triple it. There's going to be fluctuation based on Congress, politics, schedules, budgets, budget constraints, etc. We work our production system within that variability. The supply chain is tuned. Our factories are tuned at 156 units a year to be produced throughout that supply chain. Deliveries even can vary. This year, we're going to deliver upwards of 190 airplanes. Usually, it's around 150 or 160. There was a year before where we delivered less. There's going to be the variability. As long as the production system can stay stable, that allows us to have efficiency in production, quality, a non-fragile supply chain. That's what we're really seeking is the production system to stay stable. Parsing out whether it's 47 or 56 airplanes from DOD this year or 80, that's important and helpful. As long as we can make sure that between international and U.S., the production system stays intact at the 156, we're going to be very successful. The international demand for the aircraft is burgeoning. It's just getting more volume, more new customers. We've won every fighter jet competition where F-35 was involved in, I think, over the last two or three years because it's the best airplane in the world that's in production right now. Everybody and our allies that are qualified and released to get it want it. Some more so than others. Germany came in new. UK added. There's just been a litany of countries that have done one or the other or both. I'll add as well, when we talk about the confidence around the 156 rate, there's a couple of important data points as well I'd add. One is we start with a position of strength insofar that we closed Q2 with a backlog of 311 F-35s. We're about to add about 150 or so with the Lot 19 award that will come along with the Lot 18 definitization. Additionally, if you think sort of big picture, this is a program of record of around 3,500 F-35s just based on existing customers, their program of record, of which we've delivered a little over 1,100. My experience in the industry tells me one thing. When you've got a program of record with this much production left to go, maintaining that production line at a steady rate is a national priority. I have confidence that our customer and Congress understand the need for that. As it stands currently, the backlog is strong enough where I don't see that at risk, personally. Yeah. That large program of record gives us the opportunity for modernization, not just in the short term, but in the long term. Given our Skunk Works development of sixth-generation technologies for manned and unmanned vehicles, we're offering to the government to think about long-term production, long-term sustainment, and long-term development, meaning can we get to 80% of a sixth-generation brand new aircraft's capability with the F-35 by porting over sixth-generation coating technologies for the surface of the airplane for stealth, better weapons, more advanced engine potentially? Could we get to the next generation and get 80% of the capability for 50% of the unit cost? That's what we're after. Based on the program of record, there's been about 1,200 aircraft delivered so far out of 3,500. That leaves a couple thousand left to go, right? Actually 2,300, let's call it. Two-thirds of those will go to the United State services. Even if it was a U.S.-only variant of F-35 with sixth-generation technology that may not be releasable to all the allies yet, there could be 1,000 to 1,500 fifth-gen plus capable F-35s in the future for the country. If that truly can be done at 50% of unit cost of sixth-gen, that will be an incredible value for the Department of War going forward for the long run. We encourage sixth-generation development to continue too. Whether we win that positioning or not, Boeing's doing the NGAD for the Air Force. We still think sixth-generation aircraft should be developed. Alongside of that, probably six, eight, 10-year development program before there's a squadron fielded of anything sixth-gen out in the Asia-Pacific somewhere with a fully qualified staff of pilots and maintainers. Between now and then and beyond, we can give you an 80% benefit for a 50% cost at scale. I don't know how many NGAD-type planes or sixth-generation planes will be built eventually, but we have a program that we're already running and operating on with the factory set up, the workforce in place, the supply chain operating for another potentially 1,300 airplanes that can have near sixth-generation capability. Wow. On this F-35, fifth-generation plus, how receptive is the customer in doing this kind of upgrade? What you're describing sounds pretty compelling. Also, should they decide that this is a path they want to pursue, how quickly can we see this in a contracting environment? Could this be Lot 20, Lot 21? There's a very active engagement at an extremely high level with the Department of Defense. I expect it'll be taken to the White House sometime soon, hopefully, to consider this kind of concept. We've gotten encouraging feedback. There's no contract yet. This will be a spiral development, which means as long as we keep the program of record in place, we will use, again, a lot of software development and digital technology to get to some of that near sixth-generation capability. We'll do that over time. There's no contract yet. There's significant interest in the government about discussing aircraft modernization writ large all the way up to the administration level, the White House level. We're in the middle of that with them. We're getting heard. We're hearing back. It's pretty active. The way to contract this will probably not be visible to folks because it will have so much classified content that it may not be disclosable. I'm really quite confident that this concept has great merit. Government officials are starting to explore that and that we have an opportunity to really do something very valuable for the country, given its, you know, growing but limited, ultimately defense budget. We can provide value at that level, at that scale, by integrating sixth-generation technology, digital and physical, into our aircraft we're already building. I think that's really worth considering for the government. One thing that's also important to note, from the very start, kind of to Jim's point about a long program of record, F-35 was designed with really three revenue sources, right? You've got production, you've got sustainment, then you have an ongoing development source that comes in based on the customer's priorities. This is an aircraft that will continue to spiral based on its flexible architecture, on its own merits, even before we talk about infusing additional technologies. That's super helpful. You know, on top of a very robust U.S. domestic budget, we are also seeing significant growth in international budgets with our allies. Lockheed Martin on a consolidated basis has, you guys have about 1/3 of your sales international already. Can you talk about what you're seeing in the international market? What are you most excited about? Ultimately, how do you think about the opportunity in Europe with our European allies? How do you think about your partnerships? Yeah. We've really driven three strategies over the last five years. One is what we term anti-fragility in the production system. That drives us in a couple of directions. One is to make sure that we're a reliable provider of products, having a supply chain that's resilient. COVID, in Ukraine, and other unexpected situations have degraded the supply chain performance. The fact that we had already started off on this kind of anti-fragility campaign made it as resilient as it could have been. We continue to apply those principles. One of those principles is having production sources, especially operations for sustainment and even for manufacturing, in the theaters where the aircraft are going to be flown. For airlines, the OEMs for airlines will put repair and overhaul and even some production facilities in different regions of the world because that's where the aircraft are sold and flown. Our U.S. forces are also deployed heavily overseas. We've had a build-up of a plan that has a global production and operations, production operations, and sustainment operations scope. In other words, we were going to have certain repairs done in the Asia-Pacific region in countries where we have customers and where U.S. forces are deployed, same with Europe, and ultimately same in the Middle East, plus of course the U.S. We have a global industrial network that actually helps us with international sales because we can put some content into our supply chain that we have overseas and also our own facilities that we have overseas. That's one element that will help us get more international business, we think. Secondly, we are driving this digital technology play into all of our products and systems, but also into mission sets. We want to tap into digital technology resources in places like Romania, or Australia, or the UK, where outside the U.S., they have robust technology ecosystems too, which will help us on the digital side. The more employment, the more participation, industrial or digital, that a country has, the more apt they are to want to have those products that contain that content. The last piece is really this sort of notion of international is really an important aspect of Lockheed Martin. We are based in the U.S., but we are striving to be a global company. We've got, again, the facilities. We've got teams. We've got products all around the world. We train pilots in places like Romania, again. They're Ukrainian F-16 pilots. We are trying to be a full-on partner, not just to the U.S. government, but to the other governments that we serve around the world. I expect our international business to grow at least as fast as our U.S. business, even while the U.S. defense budget grows. Yeah, that's exactly how we're thinking about it as we profile the financials. Similar to the prior growth profile that we laid out, I think since then, we've seen only strength really in the international budgets. You mentioned Europe. I think also in the Middle East is interesting. When there's an event like what we saw with PAC-3 performing so well to protect troops, a lot of times those could be market-moving events. Other customers are witnessing that, and those products can be in additional high demand. You look at THAAD, which to Jim's point, traditionally, we were not even producing at capacity. That's a product that can scale a little quicker and may create some additional upside opportunity. Very helpful. In your prepared remarks earlier, Jim, you talked about aeronautics and you know that there aren't any more charges in the classified program. Can you give us more context on what gives you the confidence and visibility at this point that those charges are over, especially for this one large classified contract? Yeah, we reinvigorated our review process and our assessment process early this year because our initial assumptions of a prior review were not done to the appropriate level of depth. Even though that was asked for, it didn't happen. We've gotten down to the really baseline assumptions in the original business models for that program and have retested and revalidated or adjusted all of them. That's where the charge in the first quarter results came from, basically, was that issue. Evan has led that with the finance team and Frank St. John from the ops team. We think we've gotten down to the raw metal here and figured out what it's really going to take to finish development and build these air vehicles over some period of time. That gives us a lot of confidence, more than I've ever had, that even though that program is highly classified, we've gotten to the bare metal bottom of the issues there. Anything else you would add on that? Yes, sir. I think one of the things that really helps is Frank and I have worked together for a decade plus. When Jim asked us to make sure we had the best in class in terms of operating a deeply classified, highly complex program with respect to how it's positioned with the customer, suppliers, and an oversight environment, which does require read-ins which are very selective and rolled through the customer to maximize the expertise on this program, that should, one, give us some comfort. I think the other thing that's important to note is that we've committed to real transparency in this program. As you know, we first signaled some cost risk on this ahead of the Q2 earnings call because we believe it's material to the investors. With Jim's support, I signaled that at a public event, and we will recommit to that level of transparency. As Jim stated, coming up into the next quarter here, we are not seeing the same cost pressure on either the Aeronautics or the MFC programs that we had seen at one time before. Yeah, very helpful. You know, the cash component of these charges could be felt over the next few years. You also have a sizable pension on cash contribution. Maybe this question is more for Evan. How do we think about the offsetting elements of these free cash flow headwinds as we look out from 2027 and beyond? When it comes to free cash flow, the way we think about it, the underlying operational cash flow is growing. We're seeing us deliver out on some key backlog programs. We're seeing a commitment to working capital that is bearing fruit. Within that, though, to your point, there are some noise and offsetting items that are important to note. One, of course, is pension. This year's cash flow guide of between $6.6 billion and $6.8 billion on free cash flow assumes no pension. Next year, we assume $1 billion of pension. Though, as Jim stated, that would be $7 billion if you remove that pension. Additionally, the loss programs create some cash headwinds for us, both this year and next year, and it starts to dip down over time. I think within our planning horizon window, and there's some sensitivity on specific timelines, we can see where both those classified programs become incrementally cash positive, which will long-term create some opportunity for us. Additionally, we see some tariff impacts. We've penciled in this year about $250 million for tariff, and there'll be some number of that next year that we'll have to factor in. On a cash basis, we think most, if not all, of that's going to be recoverable over time. It's just a matter of when that recovery, when does the government write you a check back? It could take some time. Thank you. It's important clarification. We're partnering with the customer on exactly how to make sure we have the appropriate exemptions so that we don't hit tariffs to begin with and the right recovery mechanisms. We're making progress. It is a cash timing in the meantime. We're seeing some upside from the tax law with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which creates, we've said, between $400 million and $600 million of cash lift this year, offsetting some of the program charges. It will continue to give us some lift throughout the LRP period. It might not be to the same degree that we've seen this year, but in every year of the LRP, create some cash upside for us. Great. Switching gears to emerging tech companies, Jim, we've seen a lot of these new emergents come in, big splashy numbers, big valuation, lots of dreams. How do you think about where they live in the ecosystem in the defense industry? Where are their strengths? Are there opportunities for Lockheed to partner with them? Do you view them as potentially taking market share? Do you see them as a potential addition to your capabilities? Where are ultimately the Lockheed moat that would be very difficult for them to penetrate? The goal I have for our company and our industry is to find the best talent, the best technology, and the most available financial resources to support the Department of Defense, right? If we can get it from Silicon Valley venture investors, the royal we, not just the company, but the royal we, if we can get it from Silicon Valley venture investors, we can get it from the capital markets. We can get talent from great companies like IBM, Dell, Verizon, and NVIDIA that we work with today and get them to be able to work with us in a way we can scale their talent and their IP and their capability in areas we do not, as five big defense and aerospace companies, do not have that talent pool, do not have the commercial business on digital that we can use to help fund military digital development. These companies have that. We welcome and invite all comers, all from startups through our venture group. I think we have 80 investments of our cash in venture companies. We also have a fully owned subsidiary that we created the last couple of years called Lockheed Martin Evolve, which we can do private equity and joint venture type medium-sized deals with that is not subject to the federal acquisition regulation and all the rest of the company has to do. We are trying to bring in that intellectual property, that digital technology, and other sources that we can get for financing through these vehicles and through participation on our big programs. Some of the companies that are on the headline list are working with us as partners or subcontractors on things that they are really good at and they are contributing. This is how this entire industry works, by the way. If you take F-35, for example, we are the systems integrator of the aircraft. A big piece of it, like a section of the airplane, is made by British BAE, British Aerospace in the UK. Another section of the plane, which is kind of critical, is made by Northrop Grumman in California. Other components like radars are made by Northrop Grumman too. Raytheon RTX makes the distributed aperture systems that we use. U.S. BAE makes the radar warning system that is on the airplane. Pretty much every big prime contractor, so to speak, has a big piece of the F-35. That is normal for us. We will compete with Northrop on one program, and we are married to them on the F-35 and a lot of other things too. This industry is used to operating like that. By the way, Boeing makes the Seeker on the PAC-3. It's the best Seeker around. We work with that. We're married on that. We can compete in one place, and we can partner in other places. That applies to new entrants, startups, and other companies that might want to get in on our business, and even our international partners like Rheinmetall. We're partnered with them on a number of things, and they compete with us on some others. We welcome these companies, and we want them to be successful. We want to use other people's money to solve the Defense Department's problems. There are a lot of financing opportunities through these companies, through venture, and even at a larger scale that we're talking to the government about. We want to provide our government customers with the best capability they can get, and not all of it will be in-house at Lockheed Martin. We know that. Jim, maybe to wrap up, over the next 12 months, outside of Golden Dome, which areas of the business are you most excited about? Are there specific programs or capabilities you want to call out? One I would say among many is an air power strategy for the United States, a tactical air power fighter jet strategy that optimizes cost, capability, technology insertion across all of the players in our industry. What's the best fighter jet? That's my kind of personal legacy as being an Air Force pilot. What's the best fighter jet combination and plan and program so that the pilots that are out there, the men and women that are flying these planes into really dangerous places, doing very scary stuff, have the absolute best equipment in the world? If, you know, Boeing may make one of those aircraft, we may make one. If Boeing needs our technology to make theirs better, we want to cooperate with them as their subcontractor potentially. I think that's really important for the country that we do this efficiently and effectively with the Department of Defense. There are a couple other areas. Again, the munitions gap that we have in the free world is glaring. We expect a lot more business opportunity from that, if you will. We need to be able to build the infrastructure and the manufacturing foundation to do that. We're going to need help from others. Could be financially, could be technology, could be digital twins instead of building prototypes and things. We got to get better at that. I'll just pick one that's incredibly important that most people don't know much about, and that is submarine combat and sensor systems that allow both our ballistic missile subs and our attack subs to be the quietest, the hardest to find, the best deterrent we have. We have teams that work on those combat systems, sonar and other stealthy technologies that help keep those submarines effective and very quiet and impossible to find. Those are some of the things I think are important. Thank you very much, Jim. Thank you very much, Evan. This concludes our presentation on Lockheed Martin. Thank you.