United States

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20052006

Commission file number 1-11437

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Maryland

 

52-1893632

(State or other jurisdiction of

(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1877 (301/897-6000)

(Address and telephone number of principal executive offices)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Title of Each Class

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, $1 par value New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes x     No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes ¨     No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes x     No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    x¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer” and “large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (check one).

Large accelerated filerx         Accelerated filer¨         Non-accelerated filer¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12-b2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes     ¨   No     x

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second quarter.

Approximately $28.8$30.4 billion as of June 30, 2005.2006.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date. Common Stock, $1 par value, 436,911,542422,481,655 shares outstanding as of January 31, 2006.2007.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s 20062007 Definitive Proxy Statement are incorporated by reference in Part III of this


Form 10-K.



LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 20052006

CONTENTS

 

Part I
     Page
Item 1  

Business

  3
Item 1A  

Risk Factors

18
Item 1BUnresolved Staff Comments  24
Item 1B

Unresolved Staff Comments

32
Item 2  

Properties

  3325
Item 3  

Legal Proceedings

  3425
Item 4  

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

  3526
Item 4(a)  

Executive Officers of the Registrant

  3526
Part II    
Item 5  

Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

  3828
Item 6  

Selected Financial Data

  3930
Item 7  

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

  4232
Item 7A  

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

  7555
Item 8  

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

  7656
Item 9  

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

  12390
Item 9A  

Controls and Procedures

  12390
Item 9B  

Other Information

  12491
Part III    
Item 10  

Directors, and Executive Officers of the Registrantand Corporate Governance

  12692
Item 11  

Executive Compensation

  12692
Item 12  

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

  12692
Item 13  

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

  12792
Item 14  

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

  12792
Part IV    
Item 15  

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

  12893
Signatures  13497
Exhibits    


PART I

 

ITEM 1.BUSINESS

General

Lockheed Martin Corporation principally researches, designs, develops, manufactures, integrates, operates and sustains advanced technology systems and products, and provides a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic and information services. We serve customers in domestic and international defense and civil markets, with our principal customers being agencies of the U.S. Government. We were formed in 1995 by combining the businesses of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta Corporation. We are a Maryland corporation.

In 2005, 85%2006, 84% of our net sales were made to the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor. Our U.S. Government sales were made to both Department of Defense (DoD) and non-DoD agencies. Sales to foreign governments (including foreign military sales funded, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Government) amounted to 13% of net sales in 2005,2006, while 2%3% of our net sales were made to commercial customers (mainly launch services and satellites).other customers.

Our principal executive offices are located at 6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1877. Our telephone number is (301) 897-6000. Our website home page on the Internet is www.lockheedmartin.com. We make our website content available for information purposes only. It should not be relied upon for investment purposes, nor is it incorporated by reference into this Form
10-K.

Throughout this Form 10-K, we incorporate by reference information from parts of other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC allows us to disclose important information by referring to it in this manner, and you should review that information.

We make our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and proxy statement for our annual shareholders’ meeting, as well as any amendments to those reports, available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practical after we electronically file that material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. You can learn more about us by reviewing our SEC filings. Our SEC reports can be accessed through the investor relations page of our web site, www.lockheedmartin.com/investor. The SEC also maintains a web site at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding SEC registrants, including Lockheed Martin.

Business Segments

We operate in five principal business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Space Systems, Information Technology & Global Services (IT&GS) and Integrated Systems & Solutions (IS&S) and. The name of our IT&GS segment, formerly known as Information & Technology Services (I&TS)., was changed to better reflect the segment’s capabilities and service offerings following the growth experienced by our information technology and business process services businesses and through recent acquisitions. For more information concerning our segment presentation, including comparative segment revenues,sales, operating profits and related financial information for 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, see Note 16—15—Information on Business Segments beginning on page 11685 of this Form 10-K.

On February 22, 2007, we announced a realignment of our operations to enhance support for critical customer missions and increase our integration of resources. The realignment includes the combination of our IT&GS and IS&S business segments into a new business segment named Information Systems & Global Services (IS&GS). In addition, the following changes have also been made as part of this realignment:

The Aircraft & Logistics Centers, which have been part of IT&GS, will become part of Aeronautics;

Our contract to manage the Sandia National Laboratories and our ownership in the joint venture that manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the United Kingdom, which have been part of IT&GS, will be reported in Electronic Systems; and

Transportation and Security Solutions, which is currently reported in Electronic Systems, will become part of IS&GS.

Also, our Advanced Concepts organization, including the Center for Innovation, which has been managed by IS&S, will be managed by our Chief Technology Officer. These changes do not affect the historical results, discussion or presentation of our business segments as set forth in this Form 10-K. We will begin to report our financial results consistent with this new structure beginning with the first quarter of 2007.

Aeronautics

Aeronautics is engaged in the design, research and development, systems integration, production, sustainment, support and upgrade of advanced military aircraft, air vehicles and related technologies. Our customers include various government agencies and the military services of the United States and allied countries throughoutaround the world. Major products and programs include design, development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; the F-22 air dominance attack and multi-mission combat aircraft; the F-16 multi-role fighter; the C-130J tactical transport aircraft; the C-5 strategic airlift aircraft;airlifter modernization; and support for the F-117 stealth fighter, P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, S-3 multi-mission aircraft and special mission andU-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft (e.g., P-3 Orion, S-3 Viking and
U-2).aircraft. We also produce major components for the F-2 fighter for Japan and are a co-developer of the C-27J tactical transport aircraft and the
T-50 advanced jet trainer.trainer for South Korea. Our Skunk Works
TM advanced development organization is focused on next generation innovative systems solutions using rapid prototyping and advanced technologies.

In 2005,2006, Aeronautics’ net sales of $11.7$11.4 billion represented 32%29% of our total net sales. Aeronautics’The major lines of business and the percentage that each contributed to Aeronautics’ 20052006 net sales are:

Combat Aircraft

Air Mobility

Aeronautical Research and Development

The segment is dependent on the U.S. military and international governments as customers. In 2006, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 78% of the segment’s net sales.

Combat Aircraft

Our Combat Aircraft business designs, develops, produces and provides systems support for fighter aircraft. Our major fighter aircraft programs include:

F-35 “JointLightning II Joint Strike Fighter”Fighter – stealth multi-role coalition fighter

F-22 “Raptor”Raptor – air dominance attack and multi-mission stealth fighter

F-16 “Fighting Falcon”Fighting Falcona low-cost, combat-proven, international multi-role fighter

Both the F-35 and F-22 are “55TH Generation”Generation fighters, combining stealth, supersonic speed, high maneuverability, sensor fusion and other attributes to achieve a level of capability and survivability unmatched by earlier generation combat aircraft. The F-16 is a fourth generation4TH Generation fighter which, as a result of multiple updates,upgrades, continues to play an important role in the defense of the U.S. and its allies.

F-35

For theThe F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter,” theLightning II is designed to be a superior multi-role stealth aircraft offering profound improvements in lethality, survivability, affordability and supportability over all existing international multi-role aircraft. The United States and its international partners (the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and NorwayNorway) are working together on the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program to design, test and build a “familyfamily of aircraft”aircraft and sustainment systems to meet their joint and coalition requirements. Israel and Singapore are security cooperation participants on the SDD program. Ourprogram.In 2006, the U.S. and four of the partner countries signed the government-to-government Production, Sustainment and Follow-On Development memorandum of understanding, and as of February 8, 2007, all but one of the remaining partner countries had signed it as well. The memorandum provides a long-term business framework for partner aircraft sustainment modifications.

The F-35’s multiple-variant designs includeinclude:

F-35A, a conventional takeoff and landing variant (CTOL), a carrier-based variant (CV) and

F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing variant (STOVL). The F-35 is designed to be an affordable, superior multi-role, stealth aircraft offering improvements in lethality, survivability and supportability over existing allied multi-role aircraft.

F-35C, a carrier-based variant (CV)

The F-35 is planned to replace the F-16 and A-10 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18A-18A/C for the U.S. Navy, the AV-8B and F/A-18A-18A/C/D for the U.S. Marines,Marine Corps, and the Harrier jetGR.7 and Sea Harrier short takeoff and vertical landing attack aircraft for the U.K.United Kingdom Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

Aeronautics was awarded the SDD contract for the F-35 in the fourth quarter of 2001. Calendar year 2005Calendar-year 2006 marked the fourthfifth full year of performance on the planned 12-year development contract. In October 2005, we received a contract modification for the formalizationThe successful first flight of the F-35 SDD re-plan that was announced in 2003 and approved by the Defense Acquisition Board in May 2005. The revised plan contains 22 ground and flight test aircraft for all three variants. The first F-35A CTOL aircraft, a non-optimized structural designto be used to test airworthiness and systems evaluation, isoccurred in final assembly.December 2006, a major milestone in an aircraft’s development phase. Component production has begun for the first three STOVL aircraft. A major milestone was the application of power to thenext five F-35A CTOL aircraft avionics systemas well as for the first time in September of 2005. The aircraft is progressing toward first flight planned to occur in the second half of 2006.five F-35B STOVL aircraft. The first flights of the optimizedSTOVL and CV aircraft including the STOVL, CTOL and the CV, are planned to occur through the 2009 timeframe.

Given the size of the F-35 program, we anticipate that there will be a number of studies related to the program schedule and production quantities over time as part of the normal DoD, Congressional and international partners’ oversight and budgeting processes.

F-22

We are the industry team leader for the F-22 “Raptor.” Formerly designated the F/A-22,Raptor. In production since 1997, the F-22 is an air-dominance, attack and multi-mission stealth combat aircraft withhas unmatched capabilities compared with other current U.S. Air Force aircraft. The capabilities include enhanced maneuverability, stealth, super-cruisesupercruise speed (speed in excess of Mach 1 without afterburner) and advanced integrated avionics that enable itpilots to attack critical air and surface targets to gain and maintain air superiority against air-to-air and ground-to-air threats. The program is in full-rate production. Through 2005,2006, a total of 5986 F-22s have been delivered to the U.S. Air Force, including 2327 Raptors delivered during 2005. We also2006. This year, we received the contract awards for Production Lot 56 (24 aircraft) and advanced procurement funding for Production Lots 67, 8 and 9. There are 45 F-22s in backlog. Congress authorized a multi-year contract for Lots 7, 8 and 9 for a total of 60 aircraft in the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Budget.

In 2006 we delivered F-22s to the second operational squadron, the 94th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base (AFB), Virginia, and we expect to deliver the first aircraft for the third operational unit, the 90th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, in early 2007. The Raptor completed its first deployment in 2006, participating in “Operation Northern Edge” in Alaska, a large-scale exercise designed to prepare joint forces to respond to crises around the world. During the exercise, F-22s demonstrated exceptional performance, ensuring air dominance and enhancing the success of combat commanders by providing improved situational awareness for other ground and air assets. The success of this exercise led to the award of the 2006 Robert J. Collier Trophy to Lockheed Martin and the F-22 Raptor team. The Collier Trophy is awarded annually by the National Aeronautic Association “for the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America” during the preceding year. The U.S. Air Force determined that the Raptor fleet achieved initial operational capability in December 2005, based on successful completion of operational testing, pilot training and other activities earlier in the year. In January 2006, the Air Force rated the F-22 “mission capable” as a result of follow-on test and evaluation conducted principally in 2005.

The ultimate number of F-22s to be produced will be determined based upon the outcome of reviews being performed by the U.S. Government. Our goal is to continue to work with our customers and suppliers, through cost-saving, efficiency and technology initiatives, to maximize the number of F-22s that can be purchased and to provide the best-value solutions for the budget allocated.

F-16

We are the prime contractor on the F-16 “Fighting Falcon”Fighting Falcon multi-role tactical fighter aircraft and continue to provide upgrades and support for the U.S. Air Force and our international customers. The program achieved its 4,300th delivery milestone during the second quarter of 2006. Also in 2006, the program delivered its initial aircraft to the government of Poland, our newest F-16 customer. Since the program’s inception in the mid-1970s through 2005, 4,2812006, 4,348 F-16s have been delivered worldwide. The F-16 program has posted over 27worldwide, representing nearly 30 years of continuous production deliveries and thedeliveries. The aircraft has been selected by 24 countries, with 51 follow-on buys by 14 of these countries to date. Multi-role

In 2006, a total of 67 F-16 aircraft were delivered worldwide. In December 2006, an Undefinitized Contractual Action (UCA) was signed for the foreign military sales procurement of 18 new F-16 aircraft with an additional 18 aircraft option to the Government of Pakistan. We also signed a UCA for a major mid-life avionics upgrade program for Pakistan’s existing F-16 fleet. Backlog at year end was 117 F-16 aircraft, including 18 aircraft under the Pakistan UCA. The Pakistan aircraft program extends F-16 aircraft production into the third quarter of 2010.

Many technologically advanced multi-role capability improvements have been incorporated into new F-16 production aircraft as well as modification programs for in-service aircraft. Air-to-air and precision attack capabilities have benefited frombeen improved through the inclusion of new systems, sensors and weapons. Advanced electronic warfare systems have improved survivability. New fuel tank configurations have increased range and endurance. EnhancedModernized, upgraded engines have increased aircraft performance and improved supportability. Advanced communication links have given the F-16 network-centric warfare capabilities. In 2005, 69 F-16 aircraft were delivered worldwide. Our firm backlog at year end was 166 F-16 aircraft as the Greek government initiated contractual authorization to purchase 30 aircraft

Other Combat Aircraft

We participate with an option for an additional 10 F-16s. With this order, firm production aircraft deliveries are planned through 2009.

In addition, we participateJapan in joint Japan/U.S. production of the F-2 fighter aircraft. We are a co-developer of the T-50 supersonic jet trainer aircraft for South Korea. We also provide sustaining engineering, modifications and upgrades for the F-117 Nighthawk. In 2005,

Nighthawk, the world’s first operational low observable (stealth) fighter. During 2006, the F-117 team becamefleet marked its 25th year of operational service and 250,000th flight hour milestone with the first recipient of DoD’s Performance Based Logistics Award for demonstrating outstanding system level performance.U.S. Air Force.

Air Mobility

In Air Mobility, we design, develop, produce and provide full system support and sustainment of tactical and strategic airlift aircraft. Our major programs include production, support and sustainment of the C-130J Super Hercules, support of the legacy C-130 fleet, support of the existing C-5A/B/C fleet and development, installation and support of the emerging C-5M Super Galaxy fleet.

C-130J

The C-130J Super Hercules is an advanced technology, tactical transport aircraft offering improved performance and reliability, and reduced operating and support cost, compared to priorearlier C-130 models. The C-130J incorporates state-of-the-art cockpit design and avionics, a more powerful and efficient propulsion system and other innovations into a proven, mission-tested airframe. It is designed primarily to support the military mission of tactical combat transport. It also is a multi-mission platform that has been purchased in support of electronic warfare, weather reconnaissance and sea surveillance missions and as an aerial tanker. In 2006, we delivered 12 C-130Js, including eight aircraft to the U.S. Air Force and four aircraft to the U.S. Marine Corps. A total of 186 C-130Js have been ordered, with 39 remaining in backlog at the end of 2006.

The Super Hercules is the latest variant produced on the longest continuously operating military aircraft assembly line in history. Including all models of the aircraft, we have delivered a total of 2,2892,301 C-130s from the program’s inception in 1954 through 2005.

In 2005, we delivered 15 C-130Js, including nine aircraft to2006. Late in 2006, the U.S. Air Force and six aircraft toofficially declared initial operational capability for the U.S. Marine Corps.C-130J. In the U.S., the active-duty Air Force, Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard units fly C-130Js. The Marine Corps operates KC-130J tankers and the Coast Guard flies the HC-130J.HC-130J, which will soon be fully missionized for maritime patrol and search and rescue. International C-130J operators include the United Kingdom Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Italian Air Force and the Royal Danish Air Force. During 2005,International customers have been flying C-130Js on operational missions for several years.

C-5

The first fully modernized C-5M Super Galaxy rolled out in May 2006 with first flight in June. The C-5M is the combat deliveryproduct of two major modification programs to the C-5 strategic airlifter: the C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) and tanker versionsthe C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program (RERP). The C-5 AMP program replaces the 1960s and 1970s-era analog avionics system in the C-5 fleet with a digital suite along with an integrated architecture that allows for further upgrades. The reliability enhancement portions of RERP replace out-of-production or historically unreliable components with updated ones and add structural strength. Together, the modification programs are expected to extend the life of the C-130J continuedC-5s to perform high tempo military operationsthe year 2040. A total of 111 C-5A/B/C and now M-model aircraft are currently in Southwest Asia. The aircraft also were active in humanitarian efforts relating to tsunami, earthquake and famine relief. The WC-130Js, known as the Weatherbirds, flew their first full season into the Atlantic storms, and the HC-130Js saw extensive humanitarian service during hurricanes Katrina and Rita relief efforts. In October 2005, theU.S. fleet. Active duty U.S. Air Force, initiatedAir National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command units operate the C-5.

Sustainment

As part of both our Combat Aircraft and Air Mobility businesses, we provide a full range of logistics support, sustaining engineering, upgrade modifications and services for our full line of aircraft, including the F-22 Raptor, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the C-130 Hercules and the C-5 Galaxy airlifters, as well as legacy products including the P-3 Orion maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, the aircraft carrier-based S-3 Viking multi-mission aircraft, the F-117 Nighthawk stealthy attack aircraft and the U-2 Dragon Lady high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. For the F-35 Lightning II SDD program, the company is developing an autonomic logistics and global sustainment solution, focused on performance-based logistics, to provide an affordable total air system life-cycle sustainment solution for the aircraft’s multiple variants and customer base worldwide.

We are developing an extensive service life extension program, including the planned production of new wings, for the existing fleet of P-3 aircraft. We believe there are opportunities to implement this program with a number of domestic and international P-3 operators. In 2006, we signed a three-year S-3 Prime Vendor Support contract, which will continue our nearly decade-long support effort for the U.S. Navy’s Viking fleet until its

planned retirement in 2009.

phase II operational testIn 2006, the team of Lockheed Martin, Rolls Royce and evaluationMarshall Aerospace was awarded the Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract for the long-term support of the C-130J. The flight testing was completed in December 2005, and the final reportUnited Kingdom’s fleet of C-130 aircraft. We also received contracts from the Air Force is expected to be completed in the first half of 2006.

A total of 180 C-130Js have been ordered, with 135 delivered through 2005. Of the deliveries to date, 16 aircraft are part of the 60-aircraft multiyear contract that was awarded in March 2003. We are in discussions with the U.S. Government to restructurefor mid-term and long-term C-130J sustainment.

The five year follow-on F-117 Total System Support Partnership contract, awarded in 2006, continues the multiyear contract from commercial-based terms to a more traditional defense acquisition-style contract.

Other Air Mobility programs include C-5 aircraft modernization andperformance-based logistics support concept where the C-27J. For the C-5 aircraft, we are involved in avionics modernization, reliability enhancement and re-engining programsoriginal manufacturer assumes responsibility for the U.S. Air Force. For the C-27J, we were co-developerssupport of the aircraftentire air vehicle. A major milestone achieved on the F-117 program this past year included the incorporation of the latest iteration of computer software. It was deemed operational, and provided the F-117 with Alenia Aeronautica. We are currently under contract with Alenia AeronauticaJoint Direct Attack Munition satellite-guided weapons capability.

The U-2 has been the backbone of our nation’s airborne intelligence collection operations for several decades, and continues to provide unmatched operational capabilities in support of production programsOperation Enduring Freedom. As a result of the Reconnaissance Avionics Maintainability Program upgrade, which includes state of the art cockpit displays and controls along with other sensor modifications, the U-2 will continue to provide leading-edge intelligence collection capabilities for the Italian and Greek air forces.years to come.

AeronauticalAdvanced Research and Development

We are involved in advanced development programs and advanced design and rapid prototype applications. Our Advanced Development Programs organization, known as the Skunk WorksTM, has made unmanned air systems and unmanned combat air systems one focus of its efforts, and is actively developing the operational concepts and enabling technologies to provide these assets to the DoD in a cost effective manner. WeAdditional focus on future systems includes next generation capabilities for both long range strike and air mobility.

Some notable accomplishments in 2006 include the first flight of a prototype airship and continued development and incremental testing of the Cormorant multi-purpose unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) vehicle and Falcon, a hypersonic technologies initiative. RATTLRS is a demonstration program to increase capabilities and performance for expendable supersonic vehicles. Development and technology testing continues on the morphing UAV, which can change its platform configuration in flight. For the Falcon program, we plan to develop a demonstration vehicle to determine the key technologies necessary for hypersonic flight.

In addition, we continue to explore technology insertion in existing aircraft, such as the F-22, F-16 and C-130; are actively involved in numerous horizontal integration activities that allow separate systems to work together to increase effectiveness and lethality; and continue to invest in new technologies to maintain and enhance our competitiveness in military aircraft design and development.

We also provide sustaining engineering, modifications and upgrades for existing aircraft that we manufactured, including the
P-3, S-3 and U-2 reconnaissance aircraft. In 2005, the U-2 program reached its 50
th year of performance providing high-altitude reconnaissance in support of national security.

Competition

We are a major worldwide competitor in combat aircraft, air mobility and military aircraft research and development throughout the world. Unlike commercial aircraft, militarydevelopment. Military aircraft are subject to a wide variety of U.S. Government controls (e.g., export restrictions, market access, technology transfer, offset and contracting practices). While a variety of factorscriteria determine the results of different competitions, price is a major determinant,factor, as is past performance and customer confidence. Other critical factors are technical capabilities, release of technology, prior purchase experience, financing and total cost of ownership.

In international sales, the purchasing government’s relationship with the U.S. and its industrial cooperation programs are also important factors in determining the outcome of competitions. It is common for international customers to require contractors to comply with their industrial cooperation regulations, sometimes referred to as offset requirements. As a result, we have undertaken foreign offset agreements as part of securing some international business. For more information concerning offset agreements, see “Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis on page 7153 of this Form 10-K.

With respect to military aircraft, we compete with both domestic and international companies. Some or all of these companies are competing, or preparing to compete, for unmanned military aircraft sales. Our military aircraft programs also face potential competition

from the application of derivatives of commercial aircraft to missions that require large aircraft and the application of unmanned systems to various missions.

With respect to tactical fighters, the F-16 remains a formidable competitor especially on the basis of price and the continuingour continued ability to update its capabilities with changes in sensor and weapons systems. Thesystems, while the F-22 and F-35 and F-22 have complementary capabilities and are recognized as the world’s only 5TH Generation fighter aircraft.aircraft and are designed to be transformationally lethal and survivable against emerging high-threat systems. The F-22 is designed to provide air-dominance, strike and multi-mission stealth combat capabilities needed for conventional military operations. The U.S. Air Force is the only F-22 customer since international sales of the Raptor are presently prohibited by Congress. The F-35 is envisioned to be a cornerstone of future defense capability and is planned to replace several existing multi-role fighters for the U.S. and its allied partners. Due to the number of governments that have signed upagreed to participate in the system development and demonstration phase, we anticipate that significant international demand could develop for the F-35. The F-22 is designed to satisfy the long-range weapon delivery needs of our customers while providing the air-dominance, strike and multi-mission stealth combat capabilities needed for conventional military operations. U.S. military forces have reiterated their requirement for both aircraft types. An F-22 derivative is a potential candidate to satisfy some of the long-range weapon delivery needs of the future force.

Although U.S. sales have historically been the major driver for product design and development activities for military combat and transport aircraft, there has been somewhat of a change over the years with international customers being willing to fund military aircraft research and development programs in cooperation with U.S. defense contractors. Examples of joint international development programs include the F-35 program with nine countries participating, the F-16 Block 60 program with the United Arab Emirates, the T-50 trainer aircraft program with Korea Aerospace Industries, the F-2 fighter program with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan, and the C-27J airlift aircraft program with Alenia Aeronautica of Italy.

Demand for transportair mobility aircraft is driven by the need to maintain or replace large numbers of aircraft for which maintenance costs have been increasing and by the high development costs for new replacement aircraft. In mostsome cases, the choice has been to modernize and update the available aircraft. InWith some mission segments,customers, new commercial aircraft derivatives may make suitable replacement platforms and may be the final choice. In other cases, existing platforms may perform the job more capably if modernized. In 2006, domestic and international customers opened competitions for air mobility aircraft or chose to procure new C-130J aircraft.

The C-5 remains a key platform for meeting the U.S. Air Force’s strategic airlift goals through modernization of the aircraft, andwhile the C-130J provides intra-theater airlift and a full range of tactical mobility, refueling and humanitarian airlift capabilities.

Customer budget pressures andWith changes in the way products are deployed, operated and supported, our customers are changing their approach to sustainment of our platforms. Historically, nearly all domestic and international users of our fighter, transport and special mission aircraft have expandedsought to develop and maintain the logisiticscapability to perform 100 percent of the necessary support functions. Due to the combined factors of defense budget constraints, increased component reliability and decreased (or eliminated) depot inspections, the business case no longer exists for 100 percent organic support. As a result, the logistics support opportunities have increased. As the original equipment manufacturer for Lockheed Martin-produced aircraft. Wenumerous platforms, we are focused on expanding our global sustainment services, an increasingly important portion of the Aeronautics business.

The segment We continue to provide support through depot partnerships and industrial cooperative relationships. There are elements within the sustainment portfolio in which third party providers offer competition. However, in the major areas of sustaining engineering, modification and upgrade, and supply chain management, we believe the original equipment manufacturer is dependent onbetter able to integrate production improvements into a customer’s existing complex systems while keeping the U.S. military and international governments as customers. In 2005, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 76%changes affordable through the sharing of the segment’s net sales.development costs among multiple users.

Electronic Systems

Our Electronic Systems segment is engaged in the design, research, development, integration, production and sustainment of high performance systems for undersea, shipboard, land and airborne applications. Major product lines include: missiles and fire control systems; air and theater missile defense systems; surface ship and submarine combat systems; anti-submarine and undersea warfare systems; avionics and ground combat vehicle integration; systems integration and program management for fixed and rotary-wing aircraft systems; radars; platform integration systems; homeland security systems; surveillance and reconnaissance systems; advanced aviation management solutions; security and information technology solutions; and simulation and training systems.

In 2005,2006, Electronic Systems’ net sales of $10.6$11.3 billion represented 28% of our total net sales. Electronic Systems’ three major lines of business and the percentage that each contributed to 20052006 net sales are:

Maritime Systems & Sensors

Missiles & Fire Control

Platform, Training, & Transportation Systems (PT&TS)

The segment is dependent on both military and civilian agencies of the U.S. Government as customers. In 2006, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 77% of the segment’s total net sales.

Electronic Systems’ most significant programs based on revenuesales in 20052006 included: the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system; the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile; the VH-71 Presidential helicopter; the AEGIS Weapon System;weapon system; and the Arrowhead fire control system for the Apache helicopter; and the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS).helicopter. These top five programs represented less than 30% of Electronic Systems’ sales in 2005.2006. The segment has a diverse portfolio of over 1,000 programs. Historically, this diversity has provided a stable backlog and reduced potential risks that can result from reductions in funding or changes in customer priorities.

Maritime Systems & Sensors

Maritime Systems & Sensors (MS2) provides ship systems integration services, surface ship and submarine combat systems, sea-based missile defense systems, sensors, tactical avionics, port traffic management systems, and missile launching systems, aerostat surveillance systems, and supply chain management programs and systems.

The AEGIS Weapon Systemweapon system is a fleet defense system and the sea-based element of the U.S. missile defense system. It is a radar and missile system, integrated with its own command and control system, intended to defend simultaneously against multiple advanced air, surface and subsurface threats. The AEGIS program encompasses activities in development, production, ship integration and test and lifetime support for ships at sea. We manufacture major portions of the AEGIS Weapon Systemweapon system for the U.S. Navy.Navy and international customers. We test and integrate weapon systems for the U.S. Navy’s Ticonderoga Class Cruiserclass cruiser and Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer,class destroyer, along with the Kongo Class Destroyerclass destroyer for Japan, the F100 and F102 Class FrigatesF105 class frigates for Spain, the Fridtjof Nansen Class Frigateclass frigate for Norway, the KDX class destroyer for Korea and the KDX Class DestroyerHobart class air warfare destroyer for Korea. To date, we haveAustralia. Since program inception in 1978, MS2 has received contracts for 102111 AEGIS Weapons Systems,weapons systems, including 27 for the Ticonderoga Class Cruiser,class cruiser, 62 for the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyerclass destroyer and 1322 for other systems. Since program inception, we haveWe delivered all 27 Cruiser systems, as well as 53 Destroyer systems and nine other systems. the 100th AEGIS weapon system to the U.S. Navy in November 2006.

In 2005, we achieved2006, the certification and deploymentU.S. Army awarded MS2 a contract to provide five prototype units of the Baseline 7 AEGIS Weapon System, including the next generation SPY-1D(V) Radar System. In addition, nine AEGIS destroyers are currently certified for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Long Range Surveillance and Tracking (LRS&T) capability, and two AEGIS cruisers are now certified for LRS&T and engagement capability and ready for emergency activation.

In 2005, we were selected to provide combat systems for the Spanish Armada’s four new diesel submarines.EQ-36 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar. We achieved the successful keel laying forsuccessfully launched the USS Freedom, the first in a new class of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) that are designed to give the U.S. Navy added flexibility to operate in coastal waters. As partIn June, the U.S. Navy exercised an option to purchase the third LCS, the second from Lockheed Martin. The third ship is currently under a 90-day stop work order issued by the U.S. Navy on January 12, 2007, to allow the Navy time to assess the total cost of the LCS ships.

Additionally, in 2006 the Deepwater recapitalization programcontract that we co-lead for the U.S. Coast Guard we delivered three re-engined HH-65C Dolphin helicoptersthrough a joint venture was awarded an extension of an additional 43 months beyond the base-term contract completion date of June 2007. We perform work related to provide increased rescue capability in support of hurricane relief efforts. We also completed a system readiness review to upgradeair domain and improve mission capability of six C-130J aircraft.command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) on the Deepwater program.

Missiles & Fire Control

Missiles & Fire Control develops and produces land-based, air, and theater missile defense systems, tactical battlefield missiles, electro-optical systems, fire control and sensor systems, and precision-guided weapons and munitions.

The THAAD program is a transportable defensive missile system designed to engage targets both inside and outside of the earth’sEarth’s atmosphere. The THAAD system is comprised of the THAAD fire control and communication units, missiles, radars, launchers and ground support equipment. The program, currently in the development phase, has conducted athree successful test flightflights in November 2005.three attempts. During 2006, we secured the initial THAAD production contract for two fire units.

The PAC-3 missile is an advanced defensive missile designed to intercept incoming airborne threats. We were awarded a thirdfourth U.S. production contract in January 2005 to produce a total of 156April 2006 for 112 PAC-3 missiles including 32 missilesand a fifth U.S. production contract in December 2006 for the Netherlands and 16 missiles for Japan.112 PAC-3 missiles.

The Arrowhead fire control system provides modernized targeting and piloting capabilities to the U.S. Army and other international customers for Apache helicopter crews, continuing our over 20-year legacy of providing pilot-night visionpilot night-vision sensors and targeting capabilities for the Apache. More than 1,000 sensor systems have been delivered to the U.S. Army and foreign military customers since 1983. The Arrowhead kits will replace certain legacy hardware on the U.S. Army and other international customers’ Apache helicopters to provide a modernized sensor for safer flight in day, night and bad weather missions.missions and improved weapons targeting capability. The initial Arrowhead production contract was awarded in 2003, with major new awards received in 20052006 for Arrowhead Lot 23 from the U.S. Army and U.K. Productionfor United Kingdom production from Westland Helicopters Limited. The first production units were delivered in 2005, and the first unit was equipped in June 2005 on schedule.

The MLRS program is a fast-reaction, mass-firepower supplement to cannon artillery. MLRS has been in production since 1982 in various configurations. Customers include the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. National Guard and several foreign governments. During 2005, we completed deliveries of the new Guided MLRS (GMLRS) under an initial low-rate production contract. GMLRS is an all-weather, precision-guided rocket that is designed to provide increased accuracy, while reducing both the number of rockets necessary to defeat targets and collateral damage. GMLRS is an international cooperative program with the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany. The system can be fired from different launchers and has a global-positioning-system aided, inertial-guidance package integrated on the MLRS extended-range rocket body. It also has technologies to improve maneuverability and enhance system accuracy. The U.S. Army successfully test-fired seven GMLRS rockets in Iraq during 2005.

Missiles & Fire Control received a number of new contracts and follow-on orders and achieved key program milestones in 2005.2006. We lead a multinational venture that is developing the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a mobile air defense system designed to replace Patriot systems used by the United States and Germany and Nike Hercules systems in Italy. The ventureSmall Diameter Bomb II Seeker Risk Reduction award was awarded the Designreceived to develop and Development Phase contract fordemonstrate a 110-month development program in 2005. In addition, we were awarded an SDD contractmultimode seeker capability for the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP), aF-35 and F-22 aircraft. A competitive down select is planned in 2009 for SDD, limited rate initial production and full rate production of up to 12,000 units. The Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) secured its first international customer, Australia, in 2006. JASSM is an autonomous, long-range, conventional, air-to-ground precision munition that will be fired from the Advanced Gun System aboardstandoff missile for the U.S. Navy’s next-generation destroyer, DD(X). LRLAP is designed to provide precise, rapid-response, high-volume, long-range fire support for U.S. Marines ashore.Air Force and Navy.

Platform, Training & Transportation Systems

Our Platform, Training & Transportation Systems (PT&TS) business integrates mission-specific applications for fixed and rotary-wing platforms, develops and integrates postal automation and material handling systems, and provides information management solutions for government customers. PT&TS also provides simulation, training and support services, integrates advanced air traffic control systems and develops homeland security systems and products.

In 2005, the U.S. Navy selected us to build and equipThe VH-71 Presidential Helicopter program will provide the new fleet of “Marine One” helicopters for the President of the United States. The VH-71 program calls for the delivery of 23 medium-lift operational helicopters with the first helicopter scheduledwith initial operating capability to be readydelivered in 2009.

We were awarded a contract by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence to transportsustain the President in 2009. Thecapability of the Royal Navy’s multi-mission Merlin helicopter. Under the Merlin Capability Sustainment Programme, we will develop and upgrade 30 helicopters within the current Merlin Mk1 fleet with an option to upgrade up to eight additional aircraft and mission systems. We also delivered the first four new-production MH-60R helicopter development program achieved an important milestone in 2005 by receiving operational evaluation acceptance fromhelicopters to the U.S. Navy. We integrate the Sikorsky airframe with the Common Cockpit avionics suite and advanced mission systems for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare. Based on the successful delivery, the U.S. Navy approved full-rate production, and is authorizedexpected to beginorder more than 250 MH-60R aircraft through 2015 with production ofquantities peaking at 30 per year.

Our tactical wheeled vehicle team won a competitive contract award for the Future Tactical Truck System Utility Vehicle Phase II advanced avionic integration systemsconcept technology demonstration. We delivered a technology demonstrator vehicle to the U.S. Army in December. The U.S. Army is using this program to help refine its requirements for 243 helicopters. We are the prime contractor and lead systems integratorupcoming “Humvee” replacement program, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The team also is producing four Lightweight Prime Mover vehicles for the U.S. Marine Corps. Under the terms of the contract, the U.S. Marine Corps can acquire up to 120 vehicles. The vehicles will be used to tow the service’s new 10,000 pound M777 155-mm lightweight artillery howitzer.

In 2006, we received a 20-year contract to provide basic flight training to the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s A-10 Precision

EngagementForce, and were selected as the preferred bidder for the United Kingdom’s Military Flight Training System for which we expect to negotiate a contract by the end of 2007. Also in the United Kingdom, we were down-selected to the field test phase for the 2011 U.K. Census. We were a member of one of two teams that were down-selected for the U.K. e-Borders contract, a significant restructuring of the United Kingdom’s border control and security framework related to passenger traffic. We were awarded contracts with the Departments of the Interior, Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services for credentialing services. The Advanced Technologies Oceanic Procedures program designed to expandwent operational at three Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sites, providing the capability and extend the service life of that durable attack aircraft, and the British Royal Navy’s Merlin Mk1 multi-mission helicopter program.

In 2005,to substantially improve air traffic efficiencies in oceanic airspace. Our solution for the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, selected us to provide a comprehensive upgrade of itsthe electronic security operations infrastructure.infrastructure, received SAFETY Act designation and certification, substantially reducing potential liability. The operational phase of the 2006 Canadian Census, Bureau awarded us a contract to develop and operate the information processing system for the 2010 Census. The National Archives and Records Administration chose us to build its Electronic Records Archive system, establishing the methodology for how the government will store, maintain and make available electronic records. In training and support, we received a contract to provide the U.S. Army with a prototype Reconfigurable Vehicle Simulator.which included web-based data collection, concluded successfully.

Competition

Electronic Systems’ broad portfolio of products and services competes against the products and services of other large aerospace, defense and information technology companies, as well as numerous smaller competitors. We often form teams with other companies that are competitors in other areas to provide customers with the best mix of capabilities to address specific requirements. The principal factors of competition include technical and management capability, price, past performance and our ability to provide solutions to our customers’ requirements on a timely basis.

The segment is heavily dependent on both military and civilian agencies ofIn international sales, the purchasing government’s relationship with the U.S. Governmentand its industrial cooperation programs are also important factors in determining the outcome of competitions. It is common for international customers to require contractors to comply with their industrial cooperation regulations, sometimes referred to as customers. In 2005, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 80%offset requirements. As a result, we have undertaken foreign offset agreements as part of the segment’s total net sales.securing some international business. For more information concerning offset agreements, see “Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis on page 53 of this Form 10-K.

Space Systems

Space Systems is engaged in the design, research, development, engineering and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems and launch services.space transportation systems. The Satellite product line includes both government and commercial satellites. Launch Services include launches on Atlas, Proton and Titan launch vehicles, and also include the Space Shuttle’s external tank. Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems include airborne andincludes missile defense technologies and systems and fleet ballistic missiles. Space Transportation Systems includes the next generation human space flight system known as the Orion crew exploration vehicle and Ares launch system, as well as the Space Shuttle’s external tank and commercial launch services using the Atlas V launch vehicle. Through ownership interests in two joint ventures, Space Transportation Systems also includes Space Shuttle processing activities and expendable launch services for the U.S. Government.

In 2005,2006, Space Systems’ net sales of $6.8$7.9 billion represented approximately 18%20% of our total net sales. Space Systems’ principal lines of business and the percentage that each contributed to 20052006 net sales are:

Satellites
Launch Services
Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems

The segment is heavily dependent on both military and civilian agencies of the U.S. Government as customers. In 2006, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 91% of the segment’s net sales.

Satellites

Our Satellites business designs, develops, manufactures and integrates advanced technology satellite systems for government and commercial applications. We are responsible for various classified systems and services in support of vital national security systems.

We are the prime contractor for the DoD’s next generation of highly secure communications satellites known as the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system. The fully operational AEHF constellation is envisioned to include three networked satellites plus an in-orbit spare. These satellites are designed to provide improved secure data throughput capability and coverage flexibility to regional and global military operations and to be compatible with the Milstar I and II systems. The AEHF communication system includes the satellite constellation, mission control segment and terminal development. We have contracts forare under contract to build the first three space vehicles and development ofdevelop the ground segment.

We also are the prime contractor for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program. SBIRS is providing the nation with enhanced worldwide missile detection and tracking capabilities. The consolidated ground system, is now operational andsince 2001, processes data from the Defense Support Program satellites and manages the satellite constellation. The ground system also provides the foundation to evolve mission capabilities as SBIRS-HighSBIRS payloads and satellites are deployed. SBIRS-HighSBIRS is envisioned to operate with a total of four satellites in geo-synchronous earth orbit and two sensors in highly-elliptical orbit to increase mission capabilities for missile warning, missile defense, technical intelligence and battlespace characterization. Our current contract includes two geo-synchronous orbit spacecraft and two highly-elliptical orbit payloads. In 2005, we delivered2006, the second highly ellipticalfirst highly-elliptical orbit payload to our customer. On December 12, 2005, the program was recertified for continuation by the DoD, as required

following a Nunn-McCurdy breach notification to Congress that was triggered by an increase in the estimated cost of the program.launched and is performing well during its initial checkout phase.

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio navigation and time distribution and nuclear detonation detection system. Its mission is to provide precise, continuous, and all-weather three-dimensional position, velocity, timing and information to properly equipped air, land, sea and space-based users. We are the prime contractor for the GPS IIR program, which includes 20 satellites that will improve navigation accuracy and provide longer autonomous satellite operation than current global positioning satellites. In 2005,2006, we successfully delivered in orbit the first ofsecond and third in a series of eight modernized GPS IIR satellites.Block IIR-M satellites that include new features that enhance operations and navigation signal performance for military and civilian GPS users around the globe.

In 2005,2006, we continued to perform work the Phase A element ofin preparation for the GPS III program. GPS III is intended to deliver major improvements in accuracy, assured service delivery, integrity, and flexibility for military and civil users. The Phase AThis work will assess mission needs and requirements, and evaluate innovative architecture recommendations, culminating in a systems requirements review.design review in March 2007. The U.S. Air Force is expected to award a multi-billion dollar development contract to a single contractor in 2007.

We continue to conduct risk reduction and system trade studies supporting the U.S. Air Force’s Transformational Satellite program. The program represents the next step toward transitioning the DoD wideband and protected communications satellite architecture into a single network comprised of multiple satellite, ground and user segment

components. The system is being designed to network mobile warfighters, sensors, weapons, communications command and control nodes located on the ground, in the air, at sea or in space.

We are the prime contractor and systems integrator for the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) program for the U.S. Navy. MUOS is a next-generation narrowband tactical satellite communications system that willis envisioned to provide significantly improved and assured communications for the mobile warfighter. MUOS is planned to replace the current narrowband tactical satellite communications system known as the Ultra High Frequency Follow-On (UFO) system. The MUOS satellites are designed to be compatible with the existing UFO system and associated legacy terminals and provide increased military communications availability. The program calls for the delivery of five satellites, and operational turnover of the first MUOS satellite is planned for 2010.

We continuedcontinue to execute a concept study for Space Radar, a transformational system being developed for the DoD to provide global intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the military and intelligence community. The system will be comprised of a constellation of spacecraft that will provide rapid-revisit coverage of the entire Earth’s surface. During the concept development effort, we will develop and evaluate multiple candidate architectures for the system, including the horizontal integration of the system with other existing and planned assets.

We produce exploration spacecraft such as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Phoenix Lander, as well as earth-orbiting satellites and sensors for Earth observation and environmental monitoring. Our Satellite business also designs, builds, markets and operates turnkey commercial satellite systems for space-based telecommunications and other applications. In 2005,2006, we delivered five commercial satellites and were awarded contracts to construct fourone new commercial satellites.

Launch Services

Our Launch Services business provides launch services to both government and commercial customers. We design, develop, manufacture and integrate expendable and reusable space launch systems for the DoD, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and commercial customers.

We currently produce and sell the Atlas V configuration of the Atlas launch vehicle. In 2005, we launched the final Atlas III launch vehicle, which attained an overall success record of 100% for the series. Atlas V, introduced in 2002, is powered by the Russian manufactured RD-180 liquid oxygen/kerosene engine and can be configured with up to five solid rocket boosters. The flexible solid rocket booster configuration enables the Atlas to perform launch missions from low-Earth orbit to geo-synchronous orbit. The Atlas V utilizes a modular design and is more operationally efficient than prior systems. Less time is required to process and prepare each vehicle for launch. This affords greater flexibility in meeting customer launch schedule and mission performance requirements. We developed the Atlas V in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. Atlas V serves as both a government and commercial launch system. As of year-end 2005, the Atlas family of launch vehicles had a record of 77 consecutive successful launches spanning more than 12 years.

In May 2005, we entered into an agreement with The Boeing Company to create a joint venture that would combine the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. Government launches of our Atlas launch vehicles and Boeing’s Delta launch vehicles. The joint venture, named United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA), is structured as a 50-50 joint venture and, once operational, would be accounted for as an equity investment. Under the terms of the agreement, Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles would continue to be available as alternatives on individual launch missions. The agreement also stipulates that, upon closing of the transaction, both parties will dismiss all claims against each other in the pending civil litigation related to a previous competition for launches under the EELV program (see Note 15 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies on pages 113 through 114 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of that litigation).

We launched the last two Titan IV launch vehicles in 2005. In all, 39 Titan IVs, the nation’s largest expendable launch vehicle, have been launched, and 368 Titans in total were launched since the program’s inception in 1955.

The Launch Services business also includes the Proton family of launch vehicles manufactured by our joint venture partner, Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center in Russia. Launch services are marketed to customers worldwide through International Launch Services (ILS). In 2005, ILS was awarded ten contracts for launch services using Atlas or Proton launch vehicles.

In 1992, we entered into a joint venture with two Russian government-owned space firms to form Lockheed-Khrunichev-Energia International, Inc. (LKEI). LKEI has exclusive rights to launches of commercial, non-Russian-origin space payloads on the Proton family of rockets from a launch site in Kazakhstan. We consolidate the results of operations of LKEI and ILS into our financial statements. For additional information concerning LKEI and ILS, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis – “Space Business” on page 48 of this Form 10-K.

We also manufacture the NASA Space Shuttle external tank. We operate the assembly facility for NASA under a government-owned, contractor-operated agreement. The tank is the only major non-reusable element of the Space Shuttle. One tank is used for each launch. Our existing contract for the external tanks runs through 2009.

Our Launch Services business also includes a 50% ownership interest in United Space Alliance, LLC (USA). USA is responsible for the day-to-day operation and management of the Space Shuttle fleet for NASA. USA also performs the modification, testing and checkout operations required to prepare Space Shuttles for launch.satellite contract.

Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems

Our Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems business has been the sole supplier of strategic fleet ballistic missiles to the U.S. Navy since the program’s inception in 1955. The Trident II D5 is the latest generation of submarine launched ballistic missiles, following the highly successful Polaris, Poseidon C3, and Trident I C4 programs. The Trident II D5 began initial production in 1988 and has achieved a mission-success track record of 112117 consecutive successful test launches. The Trident II D5 is the only intercontinental ballistic missile in production in the United States.

We are integrally involved with several missile defense programs. As prime contractor for the Targets and Countermeasures Program, we manage the overall missile defense targets hardware and software portfolio for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), providing realistic test environments for the system being developed by the MDA to defend against all classes of ballistic missiles. We are the prime contractor for the MDA’s Multiple Kill Vehicles (MKV) system,payload system. In the first system that will be capableevent of destroying multiple ballistic missile threats and decoys withan enemy launch, a single launch. Theinterceptor equipped with the MKV payload system will carry multiple small kill vehiclesis designed to destroy adversarial missiles and decoys by collidingthe enemy lethal reentry vehicle along with them in space.any countermeasures deployed to confuse the missile defense system. We are part of the industry team that is developing the Airborne Laser (ABL) to detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles in the vulnerable boost phase of flight. We provide the ABL beam control fire control system, which is designed to accurately point and focus the high-energy laser beam. The beam control fire control system completed initial flight testing in 2005, and in 2006 its performance was confirmed in a series of ground tests.

Space Transportation Systems

Our Space Transportation Systems business provides human space flight systems.

We were selected by NASA to design and build the agency’s next-generation human space flight crew transportation system known as Orion, with an initial contract value of approximately $4.0 billion. Orion, an advanced crew capsule design utilizing state-of-the-art technology, is designeda key element of NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, and is planned to accurately pointsucceed the Space Shuttle in transporting a new generation of human explorers to and focus ABL’s high-energy laser beam.from the International Space Station, the Moon and eventually Mars and beyond. We will serve as prime contractor and lead an industry team supporting NASA in the design, test, build, integration and operational capability of Orion.

We also manufacture the NASA Space Shuttle external tank. The tank is the only major non-reusable element of the Space Shuttle. One tank is used for each launch. Our existing contract for the external tanks will continue through the final Space Shuttle flight, currently scheduled for 2010.

Our Space Transportation Systems business also includes a 50% ownership interest in United Space Alliance, LLC (USA). USA is responsible for the day-to-day operation and management of the Space Shuttle fleet for NASA. USA also performs the modification, testing and checkout operations required to prepare Space Shuttles for launch.

On December 1, 2006, we completed the formation of United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA), a joint venture with The Boeing Company, which combines the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. Government

launches of our Atlas launch vehicles and Boeing’s Delta launch vehicles. Under the dual boost vehicle strategyterms of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program,joint venture agreement, Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles will continue to be available as alternatives on individual launch missions. At the closing of the transaction, we are producingcontributed assets to ULA and ULA assumed liabilities of our Atlas business in exchange for our 50% ownership interest. We have retained the Boost Vehicle-Plus (BV+), oneright to market commercial Atlas launch services.

In October 2006, we sold our ownership interests in Lockheed-Khrunichev-Energia International, Inc. (LKEI) and ILS International Launch Services, Inc. (ILS). LKEI is a joint venture we had with Russian government-owned space firms which has exclusive rights to market launches of two booster configurations.commercial, non-Russian-origin space payloads on the Proton family of rockets. One of the joint venture partners, Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, is the manufacturer of the Proton launch vehicle and provider of the related launch services. ILS was a joint venture between LKEI and us to market Atlas and Proton launch vehicles and services. For additional information concerning the divestiture of LKEI and ILS, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis – “Space Business” on page 36 of this Form 10-K.

Competition

U.S. Government purchases of large-scale satellite systems, launch systems and strategic missiles and space transportation systems are characterized by major competitions governed by DoD or NASA procurement regulations. While the evaluation criteria for selection variesvary from competition to competition, it isthey are generally characterized by the customer’s best value determination, which includes several important elements, such as price, technical capability, schedule and past performance. We compete worldwide for sales of satellites and commercial launch services against several competitors.

Based on current projected DoD, NASA and other government spending profiles and budget priorities, we believe we are well-positioned to compete for government satellites, launch systems and strategic and defensive missile systems and space transportation systems programs. Future competitions for government systems include DoD initiatives for transformational communications, global

positioning, space radar and planetary exploration and science, launch vehicles, and NASA’s next generation manned space exploration program.science.

Commercial demand for geo-stationary telecommunications satellites and intermediate class launch vehicles that place these commercial satellites in orbit has been flat and manufacturing remains in an overcapacity situation. This has created significant price and competitive pressures. For further discussion of competitive factors in the sales of commercial satellites, see Management’s Discussion & Analysis – “Space Business” on pages 47 through 49page 35 of this Form 10-K.

Information Technology & Global Services

Our Information Technology & Global Services segment is engaged in a wide array of information technology (IT), IT-related, and other technology services to federal agencies and other customers. Major product lines include: IT integration and management; enterprise solutions; application development and maintenance; business processing management; consulting on strategic programs for the DoD and civil government agencies; logistics, mission operations and sustaining engineering for military, homeland security, NASA and civilian systems; mission readiness, peacekeeping and nation-building services for DoD, Department of State, allied governments and international agencies; and research, development, engineering and science in support of nuclear weapons stewardship and naval reactor programs.

In 2006, IT&GS had net sales of $4.6 billion, which represented 12% of our total net sales. IT&GS’ three lines of business and the percentage that each contributed to its 2006 net sales are:

The segment is heavily dependent on both militaryDoD and civiliannon-DoD agencies of the U.S. Government as customers. In 2005,2006, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 94%92% of the segment’s total net sales.

Information Technology

Our Information Technology business provides IT support to federal, state and local government agencies. Our customers include the U.S. Social Security Administration, FAA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DoD, Department of Energy (DoE), NASA, and the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. We provide program management, business process management and consulting, complex systems development and maintenance, complete life-cycle software support, information assurance, managed services and enterprise solutions. Much of the work we perform is contracted through task order vehicles (indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts) or a Government Services Administration schedule. In 2006, IT contracts we were awarded included FBI Sentinel, Army Corps of Engineers IT outsourcing and the Army’s Information Technology and Enterprise Services program.

Defense

Our Defense business provides a wide range of professional, engineering and technical solutions and services for DoD, DHS, the U.S. intelligence community and several foreign governments. We provide solutions for IT-related programs, training and simulation, document management and supply chain management. We perform aircraft and aircraft-engine maintenance, modifications, repair and overhaul. In addition, we manage mission critical infrastructure and systems. We provide operation management, integration and assembly, maintenance, logistics and engineering functions for a wide array of military systems. These include aircrew training, and flight-simulator engineering support and assembly. We install, integrate, upgrade and perform repair services for a variety of aircraft, computer, communications, command and control, radar, target, simulation and surveillance systems. We also provide facility support, field teams, spacecraft transportation, “clean-room”- based satellite processing, launch pad activation, satellite early-orbit test and checkout, satellite mission operations, ground systems development and sustainment and post-processing information analysis and related ground systems sustainment.

With the acquisition of Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc. in September 2006, we provide peacekeeping, nation-building and military readiness services throughout the world for the DoD, Department of State, allied governments and international agencies. These services include base camp construction, logistics, democratization services and management of embassies, air terminals, base camps and other facilities.

Our Defense business also manages two large laboratory facilities in the U.S. for the DoE and participates in the management of a large facility in the United Kingdom. The Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory designs nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy. It also supports the existing fleet of nuclear powered ships and trains the U.S. Navy personnel who operate those ships. Sandia National Laboratories supports the stewardship of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, developing sophisticated research and technology in the areas of engineering sciences, materials and processes, pulsed power, micro-electronics and photonics, micro-robotics, and computational and information sciences. In the United Kingdom, we own one-third of a joint venture that manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment program.

In 2006, we received a number of new and follow-on contracts, including awards from the U.S. Air Force of a one-year award term extension of our aircraft engine maintenance program at Kelly Aviation Center, from the U.S. Army for the Strategic Services Sourcing contract, from the Defense Logistics Agency for the Integration Prime Vendor program, from DHS for the National Exercise Program and from classified agencies for the Infrastructure Support Services contract and Facility, Security and Logistics Support contracts.

NASA

For NASA, we provide engineering, science and information services at several NASA centers. We perform or provide mission operations, flight hardware and payload development and integration, engineering and technical support for life sciences, IT engineering design and support services, and software design, development and process control. This line of business has been decreasing in size in recent years. In 2006, we received a follow-on contract from NASA for mission support at Johnson Space Center.

Competition

IT&GS competes against other aerospace and defense firms, IT service providers and other service companies. The competitive landscape is highly fragmented with no single company or small group of companies in dominant positions. Customer contracts are often awarded on an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity (IDIQ) basis. The principal factors of competition include price, technical and management capability, past performance and, increasingly, the ability to develop

and implement complex, integrated solutions to meet the challenges facing government customers across their entire enterprise. On some outsourcing procurements, we may also compete with a government-led bidding entity.

Integrated Systems & Solutions

Integrated Systems & Solutions is engaged in the design, research, development, integration and management of net-centric solutions supporting the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) activities of the DoD, intelligence agencies, other federal agencies and allied countries. IS&S provides technology, full life-cycle support and highly specialized talent in the areas of software and systems engineering, including expertise in complex solution areas centered around space, air and ground systems. IS&S serves as our focal point for customers with joint and net-centric operations requiring overarching architectures, horizontal systems integration, software development and inter-connected capabilities for the gathering, processing, storage and delivery of on-demand information for mission management, modeling and simulation, and large-scale systems integration. In that role,integration, and is working to apply our capabilities to the corresponding needs of a broader base of customers such as health care information users. IS&S operates the Center for Innovation, a state-of-the-art facility for modeling and simulation. IS&S also manages Savi Technology, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired during 2006 that provides radio frequency identification (RFID) solutions.

In 2005,2006, IS&S had net sales of $4.1$4.4 billion, which represented 11% of our total net sales. IS&S’ major lines of business and the percentage that each contributed to its 20052006 net sales are:

Intelligence Systems & Solutions
DoD C4ISR

IS&S is heavily dependent on both military and civilian agencies of the U.S. Government as customers. In 2006, the U.S. Government customers accounted for 97% of the net sales of IS&S.

Intelligence Systems & Solutions

Our Intelligence Systems & Solutions business develops classified systems in support of the nation’s intelligence community and homeland security. We help plan and define future capabilities, as well as develop large enterprise system solutions. We provide capabilities spanning products from consumers of intelligence to systems that gather, process, assimilate, fuse and distribute data from ground, air and space assets.

DoD C4ISR

The DoD C4ISR business is responsible for complex systems integration support to provide real-time situational awareness of actionable decision quality information to the DoD warfighter community. This information is generated through the fusion of open architectures and horizontal integration of multiple systems to provide mission critical support in the areas of battlespace awareness, missile defense and strategic C4ISR. We also provide systems engineering, integration and test support to the national space launch range system and real-time support for satellite telemetry processing. IS&S provides the DoD with a messaging system that has full interoperability with the U.S. Government, allies, defense contractors and other authorized users. In addition, we provide assistance in generating IT solutions for combat support logistics and supply tracking systems.

On the Command and Control Battle Management & Communications program, we are a member of the nationalMissile Defense National team that is constructing the complex systems that will comprise the global missile defense shield for the MDA. Our role is to develop the battle management command, control and communications architecture and provide assistance in the development of operational concepts and testing.

We are the prime contractor for the U.S. Air Force’s Integrated Space Command & Control program. Our primary role is to integrate and modernize air, missile and space command and control infrastructure. This program provides for the evolution, sustainment and support of the U.S. Space Command legacy command and control systems into a net-centric, modern system architecture that will provide data in a single common operational picture.

The Range Standardization and Automation program provides support to the U.S. Air Force in the consolidation and automation of critical range telemetry, tracking, safety and management systems for space launch operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base and Kennedy Space Center. This program provides integrated launch data in a common operational picture for the customer.

Competition

The range of products and services at IS&S results in competition with other large aerospace, defense and information technology companies, as well as with numerous smaller competitors. The principal competitive discriminators include technical and management capability, the ability to develop and implement complex, integrated system architectures, price and past

performance. Program requirements frequently result in the formation of teams such that companies teamed on one program are competitors for another.

IS&S is heavily dependent on both military and civilian agencies of the U.S. Government as customers. In 2005, the U.S. Government customers accounted for 97% of the net sales of IS&S.

Information & Technology Services

Our Information & Technology Services segment is engaged in a wide array of information technology (IT), IT-related, and other technology services to federal agencies and other customers. Major product lines include: IT integration and management; enterprise solutions; application development, maintenance and consulting for strategic programs for the DoD and civil government agencies; aircraft and engine maintenance and modification services; management, operation, maintenance, training and logistics support for military, homeland security and civilian systems; launch, mission and analysis services for military, classified and commercial satellites; engineering, science and information services for NASA; and research, development, engineering and science in support of nuclear weapons stewardship and naval reactor programs.

In 2005, I&TS had net sales of $4.0 billion, which represented 11% of our total net sales. I&TS has three lines of business:

Information Technology
Defense
NASA

Information Technology

Our Information Technology business provides IT support to federal, state and local government agencies. Our customers include the U.S. Social Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DoD, Department of Energy (DoE), NASA, and the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. We provide program management, business strategy and consulting, complex systems development and maintenance, complete life-cycle software support, information assurance and

enterprise solutions. Much of the work we perform is contracted through task order vehicles (indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts) or a General Services Administration schedule. In 2005, we were awarded a contract by the FAA for the privatization of automated flight services, one of the largest federal government outsourcing contracts awarded by a non-DoD agency to date.

Defense

Our Defense business provides a wide range of professional, engineering, and technical solutions and services for the DoD, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. intelligence community and several foreign governments. We provide solutions for IT-related programs, training and simulation, document management and supply chain management. We perform aircraft and aircraft-engine maintenance, modifications, repair and overhaul. In addition, we manage mission critical infrastructure and systems. We provide operation management, integration and assembly, maintenance, logistics and engineering functions for a wide array of military systems. These include aircrew training, and flight-simulator engineering support and assembly. We install, integrate, upgrade and perform repair services for a variety of aircraft, computer, communications, command and control, radar, target, simulation and surveillance systems. We also provide facility support, field teams, spacecraft transportation, “clean-room”- based satellite processing, launch pad activation, satellite early-orbit test and checkout, satellite mission operations, ground systems development and sustainment, and post-processing information analysis and related ground systems sustainment.

Our Defense business also manages two large laboratory facilities in the U.S. for the DoE and participates in the management of a large facility in the U.K. The Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory designs nuclear reactors for the U.S. Navy. It also supports the existing fleet of nuclear powered ships and trains the U.S. Navy personnel who operate those ships. Sandia National Laboratories supports the stewardship of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, developing sophisticated research and technology in the areas of engineering sciences, materials and processes, pulsed power, micro-electronics and photonics, micro-robotics, and computational and information sciences. In the U.K., we own one-third of a joint venture that manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment program.

In 2005, we received a number of new and follow-on contracts, including awards from the U.S. Navy for flight training support and from the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory for a five-year extension of that contract. We also unseated a number of incumbents in 2005 by winning contract awards for Information Technology Application Services, C4 Enterprise Solutions, and the Theater Medical Information Program.

NASA

For NASA, we provide engineering, science and information services at several NASA centers across the country. We perform or provide mission operations, flight hardware and payload development and integration, engineering and technical support for life sciences, IT engineering design and support services, and software design, development and process control. This line of business has been decreasing in size. In 2005, we received a follow-on contract from NASA for mission support.

Competition

I&TS competes against other aerospace and defense firms, IT service providers and other service companies. The competitive landscape is highly fragmented with no single company or small group of companies in dominant positions. The principal factors of competition include price, technical and management capability, past performance and, increasingly, the ability to develop and implement complex, integrated solutions to meet the challenges facing government customers across their entire enterprise. On some outsourcing procurements, we may also compete with a government-led bidding entity.

The segment is heavily dependent on both DoD and non-DoD agencies of the U.S. Government as customers. In 2005, U.S. Government customers accounted for approximately 95% of the segment’s total net sales.

Patents

We routinely apply for, and own a substantial number of, U.S. and foreign patents related to the products and services our business segments provide. In addition to owning a large portfolio of intellectual property, we also license intellectual property to and from third parties. The U.S. Government has licenses in our patents that are developed in performance of government contracts, and it may use or authorize others to use the inventions covered by such patents for government purposes. Unpatented research, development and engineering skills also make an important contribution to our business. While our intellectual property rights in the aggregate are important to the operation of our business segments, we do not believe that any existing patent, license or other intellectual property right is of such importance that its loss or termination would have a material adverse effect on our business taken as a whole.

Raw Materials and Seasonality

Aspects of our business require relatively scarce raw materials. We generally have not experienced difficultybeen successful in our ability to obtainobtaining the raw materials and other supplies needed in our manufacturing processes. We seek to manage raw materials supply risk through long-term contracts and by maintaining a stock of key materials in inventory.

Aluminum and titanium are important raw materials used in certain of our Aeronautics and Space Systems programs. Long-term agreements have helped enable a continued supply of aluminum and titanium. Carbon fiber is an important ingredient in the composite material that is used in our Aeronautics programs, such as the F-22 and F-35. Nicalon fiber also is a key material used on the F-22 aircraft. One type of carbon fiber and the nicalon fiber that we use are currently only available from single-source suppliers. suppliers.Aluminum lithium, which we use to produce the Space Shuttle’s external tank and for F-16 structural components, also is currently only available from limited sources. We have been advised by some suppliers that pricing and the timing of availability of materials in some commodities markets can fluctuate widely. These fluctuations may negatively affect price and the availability of certain materials, including titanium. While we do not anticipate material problems regarding the supply of our raw materials and believe that we have taken appropriate measures to mitigate these variations, if key materials become unavailable or if pricing fluctuates widely in the future, it could result in delay to one or more of our programs, result in increased costs or reducereduced award fees.

No material portion of our business is considered to be seasonal. Various factors can affect the distribution of our revenuesales between accounting periods, including the timing of government awards, the availability of government funding, product deliveries and customer acceptance.

Government Contracts and Regulation

Our businesses are heavily regulated in most of our fields of endeavor. We deal with numerous U.S. Government agencies and entities, including all of the branches of the U.S. military, NASA, the U.S. Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, and the Departments of Defense, Energy, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State and Transportation. Similar government authorities exist with respect to our international efforts.

We must comply with and are affected by laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts. These laws and regulations, among other things:

 

require certification and disclosure of all cost or pricing data in connection with certain contract negotiations;

impose specific and unique cost accounting practices that may differ from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and therefore require reconciliation;

impose acquisition regulations that define allowable and unallowable costs and otherwise govern our right to reimbursement under certain cost-based U.S. Government contracts; and

restrict the use and dissemination of information classified for national security purposes and the export of certain products and technical data.

U.S. Government contracts are conditioned upon the continuing availability of Congressional appropriations. Long-term government contracts and related orders are subject to cancellation if appropriations for subsequent performance periods become unavailable. Congress usually appropriates funds on a fiscal-year basis even though contract performance may extend over many years. Consequently, at the outset of a program, the contract is usually partially funded, and Congress annually determines if additional funds are to be appropriated to the contract.

The U.S. Government, and other governments, may terminate any of our government contracts and, in general, subcontracts, at their convenience, as well as for default based on performance.

A portion of our business is classified by the U.S. Government and cannot be specifically described. The operating results of these classified programs are included in our consolidated financial statements. The business risks associated with classified programs, as a general matter, do not differ materially from those of our other government programs and products.

Backlog

At December 31, 2005,2006, our total negotiated backlog was $74.8$75.9 billion compared with $74.0$74.8 billion at the end of 2004.2005. Of our total 20052006 year-end backlog, approximately $44.3$47.0 billion, or 59%62%, is not expected to be filled within one year.

These amounts include both funded backlog (unfilled firm orders for our products and services for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer – Congress, in the case of U.S. Government agencies) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding has not been appropriated). We do not include unexercised options or potential indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) orders in our backlog. If any of our contracts are terminated by the U.S. Government, our backlog would be reduced by the expected value of the remaining terms of such contracts. Funded backlog was $35.2$40.8 billion at December 31, 2005.2006. The backlog for each of our business segments is provided as part of Management’s Discussion and Analysis – “Discussion of Business Segments” on pages 5843 through 6649 of this Form 10-K.

Research and Development

We conduct research and development activities under customer-funded contracts and with our own independent research and development funds. Our independent research and development costs include basic research, applied research, development, systems and other concept formulation studies, and bid and proposal efforts related to government products and services. These costs are generally allocated among all contracts and programs in progress under U.S. Government contractual arrangements. Corporation-sponsored product development costs not otherwise allocable are charged to expense when incurred. Under certain arrangements in which a customer shares in product development costs, our portion of the unreimbursed costs is generally expensed as incurred. Total independent research and development costs charged to costcosts of sales in 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, including costs related to bid and proposal efforts, were $1,139 million, $1,042 million $984 million and $1,030$984 million, respectively. See “Research and development and similar costs” in Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies on page 8865 of this Form 10-K.

Employees

At December 31, 2005,2006, we had approximately 135,000140,000 employees, the majority of whom were located in the U.S. We have a continuing need for numerous skilled and professional personnel to meet contract schedules and obtain new and ongoing orders for our products. A majority of our employees possess a security clearance. The demand for workers with security clearances who have specialized engineering, information technology and technical skills within the aerospace, defense and information technology industries is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future, while growth of the pool of

trained individuals with those skills has not matched demand. As a result, we are competing with other companies with similar needs in hiring skilled employees. Management considers employee relations to be good.

Approximately one-fifth of our employees are covered by over one hundred separate collective bargaining agreements with various unions. A number of our existing collective bargaining agreements expire in any given year. Historically, we have been successful in negotiating successor agreements without any material disruption of operating activities.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Form 10-K contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities law. The words believe, estimate, anticipate, project, intend, expect, plan, outlook, scheduled, forecast and similar expressions are intended to help identify forward-looking statements.

Statements and assumptions with respect to future revenues,sales, income and cash flows, program performance, the outcome of litigation, environmental remediation cost estimates, and planned acquisitions or dispositions of assets are examples of forward-looking statements. Numerous factors, including potentially the risk factors described in the following section, could affect our forward-looking statements and actual performance.

 

ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS

An investment in our common stock or debt securities involves risks and uncertainties. While we attempt to identify, manage and mitigate risks to our business to the extent practical under the circumstances, some level of risk and uncertainty will always be present. You should consider the following factors carefully, in addition to the other information contained in this Form 10-K, before deciding to purchase our securities.

Reduced funding for defense procurement and research and development programs could adversely affect our ability to grow or maintain our revenuessales and profitability.

We and other U.S. defense contractors have benefited from an upward trend in overall defense spending in the last few years. The defense investment budget includes funds for weapons procurement and research and development. The Future Years Defense Plan submitted with the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 projects a strong2008 reflects the continued commitment to research and development of transformational capabilities acrossmodernize the military services,Armed Forces while reducing quantities of near-term systems compared to previous projections.prosecuting the war on terrorism. The emphasis on modernization is reflected in proposed sustained growth in the investment accounts.

Although the ultimate size of future defense budgets remains uncertain, current indications are that the total defense budget and the investment budget as a component of overall defense spending will increase over the next few years. However, DoD programs in which we participate, or in which we may seek to participate in the future, must compete with other programs for consideration during our nation’s budget formulation and appropriation processes. Budget decisions made in this environment may have long-term consequences for our size and structure and that of the defense industry. While we believe that our programs are a high priority for national defense, there remains the possibility that one or more of our programs will be reduced, extended, or terminated. Reductions in our existing programs, unless offset by other programs and opportunities, could adversely affect our ability to grow our revenuessales and profitability.

Military transformation and planning may affect future procurement priorities and existing programs.

The DoD is committed to a transformation that will achieve and maintain advantages through changes in operational concepts, organizational structure and technologies that significantly improve warfighting capabilities. This defense transformation is evidenced by a trend toward smaller, more capable, interoperable and technologically advanced forces. To achieve these capabilities, a change in acquisition strategy is underway with the DoD moving toward early deployment of initial program capabilities followed by subsequent incremental improvements, cooperative international development programs and a demonstrated willingness to explore new forms of development, acquisition and support. Along with these trends, new system procurements are being evaluated for the degree to which they support the concept of jointness and interoperability among the services.

We cannot predict whether potential changes in priorities due to defense transformation will afford new or additional opportunities for our businesses in terms of existing, follow-on or replacement programs. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately assess the impact on our business going forward until more is known, including whether we would have to close existing manufacturing facilities or incur expenses beyond those that would be reimbursed if one or more of our existing contracts were terminated for convenience due to lack of funding. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis – Industry Considerations” on pages 4333 through 4936 of this report.

We are continuing to invest in business opportunities where we can use our customer knowledge, technical strength and systems integration capabilities to win new business. Whether we are successful in continuing to grow revenuessales and profits will depend, in large measure, on whether we are able to deliver the best value solutions for our customer.

Our existing U.S. Government contracts are subject to continued appropriations by Congress and may be terminated if future funding is not made available.

We rely heavily upon sales to the U.S. Government including both DoD and non-DoD agencies, obtaining 85%84% of our revenuessales from thoseU.S. Government customers in 2005.2006. Future sales from orders placed under our existing U.S. Government contracts are conditioned upon the continuing availability of Congressional appropriations. Congress usually appropriates funds on a fiscal-year basis even though contract performance may extend over many years. Long-term government contracts and related orders are subject to termination if appropriations for subsequent periods become unavailable.

We provide a wide range of defense, homeland security and information technology products and services to the U.S. Government. While we believe that this diversity makes it less likely that cuts in any specific contract or program will have a long-term impact on us, termination of multiple or large programs or contracts could adversely affect our business and future financial performance. In addition, termination of large programs or multiple contracts affecting a particular business site could require us to evaluate the continued viability of operating that site.

As a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to a number of procurement rules and regulations.

We must comply with and are affected by laws and regulations relating to the award, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts. Government contract laws and regulations affect how we do business with our customers and, in some instances, impose added costs on our business. A violation of specific laws and regulations could result in the imposition of fines and penalties or the termination of our contracts or debarment from bidding on contracts.

In some instances, these laws and regulations impose terms or rights that are more favorable to the government than those typically available to commercial parties in negotiated transactions. For example, the U.S. Government may terminate any of our government contracts and, in general, subcontracts, at theirits convenience, as well as for default based on performance. Upon termination for convenience of a fixed-price type contract, we normally are entitled to receive the purchase price for delivered items, reimbursement for allowable costs for work-in-process

and an allowance for profit on the contract or adjustment for loss if completion of performance would have resulted in a loss. Upon termination for convenience of a cost reimbursement contract, we normally are entitled to reimbursement of allowable costs plus a portion of the fee. Such allowable costs would include our cost to terminate agreements with our suppliers and subcontractors. The amount of the fee recovered, if any, is related to the portion of the work accomplished prior to termination and is determined by negotiation.

A termination arising out of our default could expose us to liability and have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. In addition, on those contracts for which we are teamed with others and are not the prime contractor, the U.S. Government could terminate a prime contract under which we are a subcontractor, irrespective of the quality of our services as a subcontractor.

In addition, our U.S. Government contracts typically span one or more base years and multiple option years. The U.S. Government generally has the right to not exercise option periods and may not exercise an option period if the agency is not satisfied with our performance on the contract.

Our business could be adversely affected by a negative audit by the U.S. Government.

U.S. Government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Department of Labor,various agency Inspectors General, routinely audit and investigate government contractors. These agencies review a contractor’s performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. The U.S. Government also may reviewreviews the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s purchasing, property, estimating, compensation, accounting and management information systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will notmisclassified may be reimbursed,nonreimbursed, while such costs already reimbursed mustmay be refunded.subject to repayment. If an audit or investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or prohibition from doing business with the U.S. Government. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.

Developing and implementing new technologies entails significant risks and uncertainties thatand may not be covered by indemnity or insurance.

Our business consists of designing, developing and manufacturing advanced defense and technology systems and products. We are often tasked to develop or integrate new technologies that may be untested or unproven. Components of certain of the defense systems and products we develop are explosive andor otherwise inherently dangerous. Failures of launch vehicles, spacecraft and satellites, missile systems, command and control systems, software applications, intelligence systems, air-traffic control systems, train-control systems, homeland security applications, nuclear facilities, and aircraft or other products or systems have the potential to cause extensive loss of life and extensive property damage. We may face liabilities related to the maintenance or servicing of aircraft or other platforms or for training services we supply in the course of our business. In addition, fromFrom time-to-time, we have employees deployed on-sitein developing countries, at active military installations or locations, oraccompanying armed forces in support of military operations in hostile locations. the field.

Although indemnification by the U.S. Government may be available in some instances for our defense businesses,the risks described, this is not always the case. In some

instances where the U.S. Government could provide indemnification under applicable law, it elects not to do so. In addition, U.S. Government indemnification may not be available to cover potential claims or liabilities resulting from a failure of technologies developed and deployed for homeland security purposes.

While we maintain insurance for some business risks, it is not possible to obtain coverage to protect against all operational risks and liabilities. We generally seek indemnification where we believe that the U.S. Government is permitted to extend indemnification under applicable law and generally seek limitation of potential liabilities related to the sale and use of our homeland security products and services through qualification by the Department of Homeland Security under the SAFETY Act provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Where we are unable to secure indemnification or qualification under the SAFETY Act or choose not to do so, we may nevertheless elect to provide the product or service. Finally, some technologies, particularly those related to Homeland Security, may raise potential liabilities related to privacy issues for which neither indemnification nor SAFETY Act coverage is available.service when we think risks are manageable.

Substantial claims resulting from an accident, or other incident or liability arising from our products and services in excess of any U.S. Government indemnity and our insurance coverage (or for which indemnity or insurance is not available)available or was not obtained) could harm our financial condition and operating results. Moreover, anyAny accident, incident or incident for which we are liable,liability, even if fully insured, could negatively affect our reputation among our customers and the public, thereby making it more difficult for us to compete effectively, and could significantly impact the cost and availability of adequate insurance in the future.

Our earnings and margins may vary based on the mix of our contracts and programs.

At December 31, 2005,2006, our backlog included both cost reimbursable and fixed-price contracts. Cost reimbursable contracts generally have lower profit margins than fixed-price contracts. Production contracts are mainly fixed-price contracts, and developmental contracts are generally cost reimbursable contracts. Our earnings and margins may vary materially depending on the types of long-term government contracts undertaken, the nature of the products produced or services performed under those contracts, the costs incurred in performing the work, the achievement of other performance objectives and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees, particularly under incentive and award fee contracts, is finally determined.

Under fixed-price contracts, we receive a fixed price irrespective of the actual costs we incur and, consequently, any costs in excess of the fixed price are absorbed by us. Under time and materials contracts, we are paid for labor at negotiated hourly billing rates and for certain expenses. Under cost reimbursable contracts, subject to a contract-ceiling amount in certain cases, we are reimbursed for allowable costs and paid a fee, which may be fixed or performance based. However, if our costs exceed the contract ceiling or are not allowable under the provisions of the contract or applicable regulations, we may not be able to obtain reimbursement for all such costs and may have our fees reduced or eliminated. The failure to perform to customer expectations and contract requirements can result in reduced fees and may affect our financial performance for the affected period. Under each type of contract, if we are unable to control costs we incur in performing under the contract, our financial condition and operating results could be materially adversely affected. Cost over-runs also may adversely affect our ability to sustain existing programs and obtain future contract awards.

If our subcontractors or suppliers fail to perform their contractual obligations, our prime contract performance and our ability to obtain future business could be materially and adversely impacted.

Many of our contracts involve subcontracts with other companies upon which we rely to perform a portion of the services that we must provide to our customers. There is a risk that we may have disputes with our subcontractors, including disputes regarding the quality and timeliness of work performed by the subcontractor, the workshare provided to the subcontractor, customer concerns about the subcontract, our failure to extend existing task orders or issue new task orders under a subcontract, or our hiring of the personnel of a subcontractor.subcontractor or vice versa. A failure by one or more of our subcontractors to satisfactorily provide on a timely basis the agreed-upon supplies or perform the agreed-upon services may

materially and adversely impact our ability to perform our obligations as the prime contractor. Subcontractor performance deficiencies could result in a customer terminating our contract for default. A default termination could expose us to liability and have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. In addition, a delay in our ability to obtain components and equipment parts from our suppliers may affect our ability to meet our customers’ needs and may have an adverse effect upon our profitability.

We use estimates in accounting for many of our programs. Changes in our estimates could affect our future financial results.

Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenuessales and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenuessales and cost at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For example, assumptions have to be made regarding the length of time to complete the contract because costs also include expected increases in wages and prices for materials. Similarly, assumptions have to be made regarding the future impacts of efficiency initiatives and cost reduction efforts. Incentives or penalties related to performance on contracts are considered in estimating revenuesales and profit rates, and are recorded when there is sufficient information for us to assess anticipated performance. Estimates of award and incentive fees are also used in estimating revenuesales and profit rates based on actual and anticipated awards.

Because of the significance of the judgments and estimation processes described above, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances or estimates may adversely affect future period financial performance. For additional information on accounting policies and internal controls we have in place for recognizing sales and profits, see our discussion under Management’s Discussion and Analysis – “Critical Accounting Policies – Contract Accounting/Revenue Recognition” on pages 4937 through 5238 and “Controls and Procedures” on page 74,55, and Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies on pages 8463 through 9267 of this Form 10-K.

New accounting standards could result in changes to our methods of quantifying and recording accounting transactions, and could affect our financial results and financial position.

Changes to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (GAAP) arise from new and revised standards, interpretations and other guidance issued by the Financial

Accounting Standards Board, the SEC, and others. In addition, the U.S. Government may issue new or revised Cost Accounting Standards or Cost Principles. The effects of such changes may include prescribing an accounting method where none had been previously specified, prescribing a single acceptable method of accounting from among several acceptable methods that currently exist, or revoking the acceptability of a current method and replacing it with an entirely different method, among others. Such changes could result in unanticipated effects on our results of operations, financial position and other financial measures.

The level of returns on pension and postretirement plan assets, changes in interest rates and other factors could affect our earnings in future periods.

Our earnings may be positively or negatively impacted by the amount of expense we record for our employee benefit plans. This is particularly true with expense for our pension plans. GAAP requires that we calculate expense for the plans using actuarial valuations. These valuations are based on assumptions that we make relating to financial market and other economic conditions. Changes in key economic indicators can result in changes in the assumptions we use. The key year-end assumptions used to estimate pension expense for the following year are the discount rate, the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets and the rate of increase in future compensation levels. Our pension expense can also be affected by legislation and other government regulatory actions. For a discussion regarding how our financial statements can be affected by pension plan accounting policies, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis – “Critical Accounting Policies – Postretirement Benefit Plans” on pages 5238 through 5440 of this Form 10-K.

International sales and suppliers may pose potentially greater risks.

Our international business may pose greater risks than our domestic business due to the greater potential for changes in foreign economic and political environments. In return, however, these greater risks are often accompanied by the potential to earn higher profits than from our domestic business. Our international business is also highly sensitive to changes in foreign national priorities and government budgets. Sales of military products are affected by defense budgets (both in the U.S. and abroad) and U.S. foreign policy.

Sales of our products and services internationally are subject to U.S. and local government regulations and procurement policies and practices (includingincluding regulations relating to import-export control. Violations of export control rules could result

in suspension of our ability to export items from one or more business units or the entire corporation. Depending on the scope of the suspension, this could have a material effect on our ability to perform certain international contracts. There are also U.S. and international regulations relating to investments, exchange controls and repatriation of earnings),earnings, as well as to varying currency, political and economic risks. Our contracts, however, generally are denominated in U.S. dollars. We also frequently team with international subcontractors and suppliers, and are exposed to similar risks.

In international sales, we face substantial competition from both domestic manufacturers and foreign manufacturers, whose governments sometimes provide research and development assistance, marketing subsidies and other assistance for their commercial products.

Some international customers require contractors to comply with industrial cooperation regulations and enter into industrial participation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements. Offset agreements may require in-country purchases, manufacturing and financial support projects as a condition to obtaining orders or other arrangements. Offset agreements generally extend over several years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. See “Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis on page 7153 of this Form 10-K.

As the U.S. Government expands its role in nation-building, peacekeeping and operations support in countries experiencing internal warfare or acts of terrorism, our customers may ask us to perform services in troubled and dangerous areas of the world where we are unfamiliar with the local infrastructure. Our employees may be exposed to threats to personal safety and we may be subject to criticism domestically or internationally by individuals or countries that do not agree with U.S. initiatives in these areas.

If we fail to manage acquisitions, divestitures and other extraordinary transactions successfully, our financial results, business and future prospects could be harmed.

In pursuing our business strategy, we routinely conduct discussions, evaluate targets and enter into agreements regarding possible investments, acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures. As part of our business strategy, we seek to identify acquisition opportunities tothat will expand or complement our existing products and services, or customer base, at attractive valuations. We often compete with others for the same opportunities. To be successful, we must conduct due diligence to identify valuation issues and potential loss contingencies, negotiate transaction terms, complete and close complex transactions and manage post-closing issuesmatters (e.g., integrate acquired companies and employees, realize anticipated operating synergies and improve margins) efficiently and effectively. At the same time, extraordinaryExtraordinary transactions require substantial management resources and have the potential to divert our attention from our existing business.

If we are not successful in identifying and closing extraordinary transactions, we may not be able to maintain oura competitive leadership position or may be required to expend additional resources to develop capabilities internally in certain segments. In evaluating transactions, we are required to make valuation assumptions and exercise judgment regarding business opportunities and potential liabilities. Our assumptions or judgment may prove to be inaccurate. Our due diligence reviews may not identify all of the material issues necessary to accurately estimate the cost and potential loss contingencies of a particular transaction. Future acquisitions might require that we issue stock or incur indebtedness. This could dilute returns to existing stockholders, or adversely affect our credit rating or future financial performance, if our integration plans are not successful.performance. We also may incur unanticipated costs or expenses, including post-closing asset impairment charges, expenses associated with eliminating duplicate facilities, litigation and other liabilities. While we believe that we have established appropriate procedures and processes to mitigate many of these risks, there is no assurance that our integration efforts and business acquisition strategy will be successful.

Divestitures may result in continued financial involvement in the divested businesses, such as through guarantees or other financial arrangements, for a period of time following the transaction. Nonperformance by those divested businesses could affect our future financial results.

Business disruptions could seriously affect our future revenuesales and financial condition or increase our costs and expenses.

Our business may be impacted by disruptions including, but not limited to, threats to physical security, information technology attacks or failures, damaging weather or other acts of nature and pandemics or other public health crises. Such disruptions could affect our internal operations or services provided to customers, and could impact our revenue,sales, increase our expenses or adversely affect our reputation or our stock price.

Unforeseen environmental costs could impact our future earnings.

Our operations are subject to and affected by a variety of federal, state, local and foreign environmental protection laws and regulations. We are involved in environmental responses at some of our facilities and former facilities, and at third-party sites not owned by us where we have been designated a potentially responsible party by the EPA or by a state agency.

We manage various government-owned facilities on behalf of the government. At such facilities, environmental compliance and remediation costs have historically been the responsibility of the government and we relied (and continue to rely with respect to past practices) upon government funding to pay such costs. While the government remains responsible for capital and operating costs associated with environmental compliance, responsibility for fines and penalties associated with environmental noncompliance are typically borne by either the government or the contractor, depending on the contract and the relevant facts.

Most of the laws governing environmental matters include criminal provisions. If we were convicted of a violation of the Federal Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, our facility or facilities involved in the violation would be placed by EPA on the “Excluded Parties List” maintained by the General Services Administration. The listing would continue until the EPA concluded that the cause of the violation had been cured. Listed facilities cannot be used in performing any U.S. Government contract awarded to us during any period of listing by the EPA.

We have incurred and will likely continue to incur liabilities under various statefederal and federalstate statutes for the cleanup of pollutants previously released into the environment. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. Among the variables management must assess in evaluating costs associated with these cases and remediation sites generally are changing cost estimates, continually evolving governmental environmental standards and cost allowability issues. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or cleanup to the extent estimable, see “Environmental Matters” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis on pages 54 through 55page 40 and Note 15-Legal14—Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies on pages 11382 through 11685 of this Form 10-K.

Unanticipated changes in our tax provisions or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could affect our profitability.

Our business operates in many locations under government jurisdictions that impose income taxes. Changes in domestic or foreign income tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation, could result in higher or lower income tax rates assessed or changes in the taxability of certain revenues or the deductibility of certain expenses, thereby affecting our income tax expense and profitability. In addition, audits by income tax authorities could result in unanticipated increases in our income tax expense.

We are involved in a number of legal proceedings. We cannot predict the outcome of litigation and other contingencies with certainty.

Our business may be adversely affected by the outcome of legal proceedings and other contingencies (including environmental remediation costs) that cannot be predicted with certainty. As required by GAAP in the U.S., we estimate material loss contingencies and establish reserves based on our assessment of contingencies where liability is deemed probable and reasonably estimable in light of the facts and circumstances known to us at a particular point in time. Subsequent developments in legal proceedings may affect our assessment and estimates of the loss contingency recorded as a liability or as a reserve against assets in our financial statements. For a description of our current legal proceedings, see Item 3 – Legal Proceedings

on pages 3425 through 3526 and Note 1514 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies on pages 11382 through 11685 of this Form 10-K.

In order to be successful, we must attract retain and motivateretain key employees, and failure to do so could seriously harm us.

Our business has a continuing need to attract large numbers of skilled personnel, including personnel holding security clearances, to support the growth of the enterprise and to replace individuals who have terminated employment due to retirement or for other reasons. To the extent that the demand for qualified personnel exceeds supply, as has been the case in recent years, we could experience higher labor, recruiting or training costs in order to attract and retain such employees, or could experience difficulties in performing under our contracts if our needs for such employees were unmet.

Historically, where employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with various unions, we have been successful in negotiating renewals to expiring agreements without any material disruption of operating activities. This does not assure, however, that we will be successful in our efforts to negotiate renewals of our existing collective bargaining agreements when they expire. If we were unsuccessful in those efforts, there is the potential that we could incur unanticipated delays or expenses in the programs affected by any resulting work stoppages.

Our forward-looking statements and projections may prove to be inaccurate.

Our actual financial results likely will be different from those projected due to the inherent nature of projections and may be better or worse than projected. Given these uncertainties, you should not rely on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K. We expressly disclaim a duty to provide updates to forward-looking statements after the date of this Form 10-K to reflect the occurrence of subsequent events, changed circumstances, changes in our expectations, or the estimates and assumptions associated with them. The forward-looking statements in this Form

10-K are intended to be subject to the safe harbor protection provided by the federal securities laws.

In addition, general economic conditions and trends, including interest rates, government budgets and inflation, can and do affect our businesses. For a discussion identifying additional risk factors and important factors that could cause actual results to vary materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements, see the preceding discussion of Risk Factors on pages 2418 through 32,24, Government Contracts and Regulation on page 22,pages 16 through 17, “Industry Considerations” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis on pages 4333 through 49,36, Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies on pages 8463 through 92,67, and “Critical Accounting Policies” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis on pages 4937 through 5540 of this Form 10-K. Other factors, in addition to those described, may affect our forward-looking statements or actual results.

 

ITEM 1B.UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2.PROPERTIES

At December 31, 2005,2006, we operated in 473500 locations (including, offices, manufacturing plants, warehouses, service centers, laboratories and other facilities) throughout the United States and internationally. Of these, we owned 48 locations aggregating approximately 30 million square feet and leased space at 425452 locations aggregating approximately 2526 million square feet. We also manage or occupy various government-owned facilities. The U.S. Government also furnishes equipment that we use in some of our businesses.

At December 31, 2005,2006, our business segments hadoccupied major operationsfacilities at the following principal locations:

 

Aeronautics - Palmdale, California; Marietta, Georgia; and Fort Worth, Texas.

Electronic Systems - Troy, Alabama; Camden, Arkansas; Orlando, and Riviera Beach, Florida; Baltimore and Rockville, Maryland; Marion, Massachusetts; Eagan, Minnesota; Moorestown/Mt. Laurel, New Jersey; Owego and Syracuse, New York; Akron, Ohio; Archbald, Pennsylvania; Grand Prairie, Texas; Manassas, Virginia; Kanata, Ontario, Canada; and Ampthill, and Havant, United Kingdom.

Space Systems - San Diego, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; Denver, Colorado; Cape Canaveral, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Valley Forge and Newtown, Pennsylvania;Pennsylvania.

Information Technology & Global Services—Sunnyvale, California; Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Niskayuna, New York; Greenville, South Carolina; San Antonio, Texas; and Harlingen, Texas.the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Integrated Systems & Solutions - Goodyear, Arizona; San Diego, San Jose and Santa Maria, California; Boulder, Colorado Springs and Denver, Colorado; Gaithersburg, and Hanover, Maryland; Omaha, Nebraska; Valley Forge, Pennsylvania; Suffolk, Virginia; and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Information & Technology Services - Sunnyvale, California; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Niskayuna, New York; Greenville, South Carolina; Houston and San Antonio, Texas; and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

Corporate and other locations - Bethesda, Maryland; other locations within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; and Lakeland and Orlando, Florida.

At December 31, 2005,2006, a summary of our floor space by business segment consisted of:

 

(Square feet in millions)

  Leased  Owned  Government
Owned
  Total

Aeronautics

  1.4  4.9  15.0  21.3

Electronic Systems

  10.5  10.0  0.2  20.7

Space Systems

  2.0  8.8  5.0  15.8

Integrated Systems & Solutions

  4.4  2.8  —    7.2

Information & Technology Services

  5.3  0.3  6.2  11.8

Corporate & other locations

  1.2  3.0  —    4.2
            

Total

  24.8  29.8  26.4  81.0
            

    (Square feet in millions)  Leased  Owned  Government
Owned
  Total

Aeronautics

  1.3  5.0  15.1  21.4

Electronic Systems

  10.7  10.1  0.2  21.0

Space Systems

  1.2  8.6  5.0  14.8

Information Technology & Global Services

  6.5  0.2  6.1  12.8

Integrated Systems & Solutions

  4.9  2.7  —    7.6

Corporate & other locations

  1.3  2.9  —    4.2

Total

  25.9  29.5  26.4  81.8

A portion of our activity is related to engineering and research and development, which is not susceptible to productive capacity analysis. In the area of manufacturing, most of the operations are of a job-order nature, rather than an assembly line process, and productive equipment has multiple uses for multiple products. Management believes that all of our major physical facilities are in good condition and are adequate for their intended use.

 

ITEM 3.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment. In the opinion of management and in-house counsel, the probability is remote that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.the Corporation as a whole. The results of legal proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty. These matters include the proceedings summarized in Note 1514 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies on pages 11388 through 11691 of this Form 10-K.

From time-to-time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. U.S. Government investigations of us, whether relating to government contracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties being imposed upon us, or could lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracting. U.S. Government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against us.

We are subject to federal and state requirements for protection of the environment, including those for discharge of hazardous materials and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, we are a party to or have our property subject to

various lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental protection matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in us being involved with related legal proceedings, claims and remediation obligations. The extent of our financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably estimated at this time. For information regarding these matters, including current estimates of the amounts that we believe are required for remediation or clean-up to the extent estimable, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the caption “Environmental Matters” on pages 5442 through 55,43, and Note 1514 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies on pages 11388 through 11691 of this Form 10-K.

Like many other industrial companies in recent years, we are a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into our premises and certain historical products. We have never mined or produced asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any currently manufactured products. We have been successful in having a substantial number of these claims dismissed without payment. The remaining resolved claims have settled for amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate. A substantial majority of the asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Based on the information currently available, we do not believe that resolution of these asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on us.

In addition, as previously reported, on July 2, 2004,upon the New Mexico Environment Department issued three administrative compliance orders to the DoE and Sandia Corporation. Sandia Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, is the management and

operating contractor for Sandia National Laboratories pursuant to a contract with DoE, and is the co-operator of the facility. The orders allege violations of regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act pertaining to matters such as the accumulation of materials for re-use, record-keeping, waste characterization, and other management issues. The order seeks penalties totaling $3.2 million for the alleged violations. Sandia and DoE are contesting the orders. On November 17, 2005, the parties entered into a Stipulated Partial Order resolving approximately half of the alleged violations for a total of approximately $270,000. The other allegations remain unresolved and under discussion.

 

ITEM 4.SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2005.2006.

ITEM 4(a). EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

ITEM 4(a).EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

Our executive officers are listed below, as well as information concerning their age at December 31, 2005,2006, positions and offices held with the Corporation, and principal occupation and business experience over the past five years. There were no family relationships among any of our executive officers and directors. All officers serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.

Robert J. Stevens (54)(55), Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Stevens has served as Chairman of the Board since April 2005, Chief Executive Officer since August 2004 and President since October 2000. He previously served as Chief Operating Officer from October 2000 to August 2004; Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from October 1999 to February 2001; Vice President of Strategic Development from November 1998 to September 1999; President and Chief Operating Officer, Energy & Environment Sector from January 1998 to June 1999; President, Air Traffic Management Division from June 1996 to January 1998; Executive Vice President and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Air Traffic Management from December 1993 to May 1996; and General Manager of Loral Systems Manufacturing Company from 1987 to 1993.2004.

Michael F. Camardo (63), Executive Vice President – Information & Technology Services

Mr. Camardo has served as Executive Vice President – Information & Technology Services since October 1999. He previously served as President, Lockheed Martin Technology Services Sector from March 1995 to September 1999; and President, Martin Marietta Services Group from April 1993 to March 1995.

James B. Comey (45)(46), Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Mr. Comey has served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel since October 2005. He previously served as Deputy Attorney General of the United States to oversee all operations of the Department of Justice from 2003 to 2005;2005 and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2002 to 2003; and Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the Richmond Division of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1996 to 2001.2003.

Robert B. Coutts (55)(56), Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems

Mr. Coutts has served as Executive Vice President – Electronic Systems since June 2003. He previously served as Executive Vice President - President—Systems Integration from October 1999 to May 2003;2003.

Linda R. Gooden (53), Executive Vice President – Information Systems & Global Services

Ms. Gooden was appointed Executive Vice President – Information Systems & Global Services on February 22, 2007 and Chief Operating Officer, Electronics Sector from October 1998 to September 1999;previously served as Executive Vice President – Information Technology & Global Services since January 2007. She also served as President, Lockheed Martin Government Electronics SystemsInformation Technology from JanuarySeptember 1997 to September 1998; President, Lockheed Martin Aero and Naval Systems from September 1994 to December 1996; and as Vice President, Sourcing for the Martin Marietta Corporation from 1993 to August 1994.2006.

Ralph D. Heath (57)(58), Executive Vice President – Aeronautics

Mr. Heath has served aswas elected Executive Vice President – Aeronautics sincein January 2005. He previously served as Executive Vice President and General Manager of the F-22 Program from November 2002 to December 2004;2004 and Chief Operating Officer for Aeronautics from November 1999 to November 2002; and Vice President of Business Development for Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems from January 1996 to November 1999.2002.

Christopher E. Kubasik (44)(45), Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Kubasik has served as Executive Vice President since August 2004, and as Chief Financial Officer since February 2001. He previouslyjoined the Corporation in November 1999 and served as Senior Vice President from October 2001 to August 2004; Vice President from February 2001 to September 2001; and Vice President and Controller from November 1999that date to AugustFebruary 2001.

G. Thomas Marsh (62)Joanne M. Maguire (52), Executive Vice President – Space Systems

Mr. MarshMs. Maguire has served as Executive Vice President – Space Systems since July 2003. He2006. She previously served as Vice President and Deputy of Lockheed Martin Space and Strategic MissilesSystems Company from JanuaryJuly 2003 to June 2003; President of Lockheed Martin Astronautics from June 1999 to January 2003; Executive2006 and Vice President, Engineering & Technology for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space from January 1999 to June 1999; and President, Special Programs for Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company from January 1997March 2003 to January 1999.

Stanton D. Sloane (55), ExecutiveJuly 2003. Before joining Lockheed Martin, Ms. Maguire served as Sector Deputy and Vice President – Integrated Systemsof Business Development for TRW Space & SolutionsElectronics, an operating sector of TRW, Inc.

Mr. Sloane has served as Executive Vice President – Integrated Systems & Solutions since June 2004. He previously served as President, Lockheed Martin Management & Data Systems from April 2003 to May 2004; Executive Vice President, Lockheed Martin Management & Data Systems from January 2000 to March 2003; and Senior Vice President, Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications from February 1998 to December 1999.

Martin T. Stanislav (41)(42), Vice President and Controller

Mr. Stanislav has served as Vice President and Controller since March 2005. He previously served as Vice President and Controller of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company from June 2002 to March 2005;2005 and Vice President of Lockheed Martin Financial Services from April 1999 to June 2002.

Mary MargaretM. VanDeWeghe (46)(47), Senior Vice President of Finance

Ms. VanDeWeghe has served as Senior Vice President of Finance since February 2006. She previouslyFollowing a career with J.P. Morgan, where she was a Managing Director, she served as Chief Executive Officer of Forte Consulting from 1997 to 2006 and as Executive in Residence at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland during the same period. She also held a variety of positions at J.P. Morgan from 1983 to 1996, serving most recently as a Managing Director.

Anthony G. Van Schaick (60), Vice President and Treasurer

Mr. Van Schaick has served as Vice President and Treasurer since October 2002. He previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company from 1997 to October 2002. He also served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, John Wieland Homes, Inc. from 1995 to 1997; Vice President, Group Business Operations, Lockheed Corporation, from 1992 to 1995; and Vice President and Treasurer, Lockheed Corporation, from 1985 to 1992.

PART II

 

ITEM 5.MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

At January 31, 2006,2007, we had 42,66941,350 holders of record of our common stock, par value $1 per share. Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. under the symbol LMT. Information concerning the stock prices as reported on the NYSE composite transaction tape and dividends paid during the past two years is as follows:

Common Stock – Dividends Paid and Market Prices

 

  Dividends Paid  Market Prices (High-Low)  Dividends Paid    Market Prices (High-Low)

Quarter

  2005  2004  2005  2004  2006  2005    2006  2005

First

  $0.25  $0.22  $61.47 – $52.54  $52.19 – $43.10  $0.30  $0.25    $77.78 – $62.52  $61.47 – $52.54

Second

   0.25   0.22   65.46 –   58.28   52.50 –   45.73   0.30   0.25     77.95  –  69.87   65.46  –  58.28

Third

   0.25   0.22   65.24 –   59.82   56.00 –   51.05   0.30   0.25     86.45  –  72.01   65.24  –  59.82

Fourth

   0.30   0.25   64.28 –   58.50   61.77 –   52.19   0.35   0.30     93.24  –  82.70   64.28  –  58.50
            

Year

  $1.05  $0.91  $65.46 – $52.54  $61.77 – $43.10  $1.25  $1.05    $93.24 – $62.52  $65.46 – $52.54
            

Stock Price Performance Graph

The following chart compares the total return on a cumulative basis of $100 invested in Lockheed Martin common stock on December 31, 2001 to the Standard and Poors (S&P) Aerospace & Defense Index and the S&P 500 Index.

The S&P Aerospace & Defense Index comprises The Boeing Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., L3 Communications, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Raytheon Company, Rockwell Collins, Inc. and United Technologies Corporation. The stock performance indicated on the chart is not a guarantee of future performance.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table provides information about purchases by Lockheed Martinour repurchases of common stock during the three-month period ended December 31, 2005 of equity securities that are registered by the Corporation pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act.2006.

 

Period

  Total Number
of Shares
Purchased
  Average
Price Paid
Per Share
  Total Number of
Shares Purchased
as Part of Publicly
Announced
Program(1)
  Maximum Number of
Shares That May Yet
Be Purchased Under
the Program(2)

October 2005

  569,400  $60.40  569,400  46,158,688

November 2005

  3,843,900   59.61  3,843,900  42,314,788

December 2005

  421,000   63.23  421,000  41,893,788
Period 

Total Number of

Shares Purchased

 Average Price
Paid Per
Share
 Total Number of Shares
Purchased as Part of
Publicly Announced
Program (1)
 

Maximum Number of

Shares That May Yet Be
Purchased Under the
Program(2)

October

 447,700 $86.92 447,700 36,108,688

November

 849,200   86.79 849,200 35,259,488

December

 929,400   90.74 929,400 34,330,088

 

(1)We repurchased a total of 4,834,3002,226,300 shares of our common stock during the quarter ended December 31, 2005 under a share repurchase program that we announced in October 2002.2006.

(2)In October 2002, our Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program for the repurchase of up to 23 million shares of our common stock from time-to-time. In February 2004 and September 2005,stock. Since the program’s inception, an additional 2085 million shares and 45 million shares, respectively, werehave been authorized for repurchase under the program. Under the program, managementManagement has discretion to determine the number and price of the shares to be repurchased, and the timing of any repurchases in compliance with applicable law and regulation.regulation, under the program. As of December 31, 2005,2006, we had repurchased a total of 46,106,21273,669,912 shares under the program.

In 2005,2006, we did not make any unregistered sales of equity securities.

ITEM 6.SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

Consolidated Financial Data - Data—Five Year Summary

 

(In millions, except per share data and ratios)

  2005(a) 2004(b) 2003(c) 2002(d) 2001(e)   2006(a)   2005(b)   2004(c)   2003(d)   2002(e) 

OPERATING RESULTS

                

Net sales

  $37,213  $35,526  $31,824  $26,578  $23,990   $39,620   $37,213   $35,526   $31,824   $26,578 

Cost of sales

   34,676   33,558   29,848   24,629   22,447    36,186    34,676    33,558    29,848    24,629 
                   3,434    2,537    1,968    1,976    1,949 
   2,537   1,968   1,976   1,949   1,543 

Other income and expenses, net

   449   121   43   (791)  (710)   519    449    121    43    (791)
                

Operating profit

   2,986   2,089   2,019   1,158   833    3,953    2,986    2,089    2,019    1,158 

Interest expense

   370   425   487   581   700    361    370    425    487    581 
                

Earnings from continuing operations before income taxes

   2,616   1,664   1,532   577   133    3,592    2,616    1,664    1,532    577 

Income tax expense

   791   398   479   44   90    1,063    791    398    479    44 
                

Earnings from continuing operations

   1,825   1,266   1,053   533   43    2,529    1,825    1,266    1,053    533 

Loss from discontinued operations

   —     —     —     (33)  (1,089)   —      —      —      —      (33)
                

Net earnings (loss)

  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053  $500  $(1,046)
                

Net earnings

  $2,529   $1,825   $1,266   $1,053   $500 

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

                

Basic:

                

Continuing operations

  $4.15  $2.86  $2.36  $1.20  $0.10   $5.91   $4.15   $2.86   $2.36   $1.20 

Discontinued operations

   —     —     —     (0.07)  (2.55)   —      —      —      —      (0.07)
                  $5.91   $4.15   $2.86   $2.36   $1.13 
  $4.15  $2.86  $2.36  $1.13  $(2.45)
                

Diluted:

                

Continuing operations

  $4.10  $2.83  $2.34  $1.18  $0.10   $5.80   $4.10   $2.83   $2.34   $1.18 

Discontinued operations

   —     —     —     (0.07)  (2.52)   —      —      —      —      (0.07)
                  $5.80   $4.10   $2.83   $2.34   $1.11 
  $4.10  $2.83  $2.34  $1.11  $(2.42)
                

CASH DIVIDENDS

  $1.05  $0.91  $0.58  $0.44  $0.44   $1.25   $1.05   $0.91   $0.58   $0.44 
                

CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET DATA

                

Current assets

  $10,529  $8,953  $9,401  $10,626  $10,778   $10,164   $10,529   $8,953   $9,401   $10,626 

Property, plant and equipment, net

   3,924   3,599   3,489   3,258   2,991    4,056    3,924    3,599    3,489    3,258 

Goodwill

   8,447   7,892   7,879   7,380   7,371    9,250    8,447    7,892    7,879    7,380 

Purchased intangibles, net

   560   672   807   814   939    605    560    672    807    814 

Prepaid pension asset

   235    1,360    1,030    1,213    1,221 

Other assets

   4,284   4,438   4,599   4,901   5,635    3,921    2,924    3,408    3,386    3,680 
                

Total

  $27,744  $25,554  $26,175  $26,979  $27,714   $28,231   $27,744   $25,554   $26,175   $26,979 
                

Current maturities of long-term debt

  $202  $15  $136  $1,365  $89   $34   $202   $15   $136   $1,365 

Other current liabilities

   9,226   8,551   8,757   8,456   9,600    9,519    9,226    8,551    8,757    8,456 

Long-term debt

   4,784   5,104   6,072   6,217   7,422 

Long-term debt, net

   4,405    4,784    5,104    6,072    6,217 

Accrued pension liabilities

   3,025    2,097    1,660    1,100    1,872 

Other postretirement benefit liabilities

   1,277   1,236   1,440   1,480   1,565    1,496    1,277    1,236    1,440    1,480 

Other liabilities

   4,388   3,627   3,014   3,596   2,595    2,868    2,291    1,967    1,914    1,724 

Stockholders’ equity

   7,867   7,021   6,756   5,865   6,443    6,884    7,867    7,021    6,756    5,865 
                

Total

  $27,744  $25,554  $26,175  $26,979  $27,714   $28,231   $27,744   $25,554   $26,175   $26,979 
                

COMMON SHARES AT YEAR-END

   432   438   446   455   441    421    432    438    446    455 
                

RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL(f)

   14.5%  10.8%  9.6%  6.0%  (3.7)%   19.2%    14.5%    10.8%    9.6%    6.0% 
                

CASH FLOW DATA

                

Cash provided by operating activities

  $3,194  $2,924  $1,809  $2,288  $1,825   $3,783   $3,194   $2,924   $1,809   $2,288 

Cash (used for) provided by investing activities

   (499)  (708)  (1,461)  (539)  139 

Cash used for investing activities

   (1,655)   (499)   (708)   (1,461)   (539)

Cash (used for) provided by financing activities

   (1,511)  (2,166)  (2,076)  77   (2,557)   (2,460)   (1,511)   (2,166)   (2,076)   77 
                

NEGOTIATED BACKLOG

  $74,825  $73,986  $76,899  $70,385  $71,269   $75,905   $74,825   $73,986   $76,899   $70,385 
                

Notes to Five Year Summary

 

(a)Includes the effects of items not considered in senior management’sthe assessment of the operating performance of the Corporation’sour business segments (see the section, “Results of Operations”Operations – Unallocated Corporate (Expense) Income, Net” in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A)) which, on a combined basis, increased earnings from continuing operations before income taxes by $214 million, $139 million after tax ($0.31 per share). Also includes a reduction in income tax expense of $62 million ($0.14 per share) resulting from a tax benefit related to claims we filed for additional extraterritorial income exclusion (ETI) tax benefits. These items increased earnings by $201 million after tax ($0.45 per share).

(b)Includes the effects of items not considered in the assessment of the operating performance of our business segments (see the section, “Results of Operations – Unallocated Corporate (Expense) Income, Net” in MD&A) which, on a combined basis, increased earnings from continuing operations before income taxes by $173 million, $113 million after tax ($0.25 per share).

 

(b)(c)Includes the effects of items not considered in senior management’sthe assessment of the operating performance of the Corporation’sour business segments (see the section, “Results of Operations”Operations – Unallocated Corporate (Expense) Income, Net” in MD&A) which, on a combined basis, decreased earnings from continuing operations before income taxes by $215 million, $154 million after tax ($0.34 per share). Also includes a reduction in income tax expense resulting from the closure of an Internal Revenue Service examination of $144 million ($0.32 per share). These items reduced earnings by $10 million after tax ($0.02 per share).

 

(c)(d)Includes the effects of items not considered in senior management’sthe assessment of the operating performance of the Corporation’sour business segments (see the section, “Results of Operations” in MD&A) which, on a combined basis, decreased earnings from continuing operations before income taxes by $153 million, $102 million after tax ($0.22 per share).

 

(d)(e)Includes the effects of items not considered in senior management’sthe assessment of the operating performance of the Corporation’sour business segments (see the section, “Results of Operations” in MD&A) which, on a combined basis, decreased earnings from continuing operations before income taxes by $1,112 million, $632 million after tax ($1.40 per share). In 2002, the Corporation adopted FAS 142 which prohibits the amortization of goodwill.

 

(e)(f)Includes the effects of items not considered in senior management’s assessment of the operating performance of the Corporation’s business segments which, on a combined basis, decreased earnings from continuing operations before income taxes by $973 million, $651 million after tax ($1.50 per share). Also includes a gain from the disposal of a business and charges for the Corporation’s exit from its global telecommunications services business which is included in discontinued operations and which, on a combined basis, increased the net loss by $1 billion ($2.38 per share).

(f)The Corporation definesWe define return on invested capital (ROIC) as net incomeearnings plus after-tax interest expense divided by average invested capital (stockholders’ equity plus debt), after adjusting stockholders’ equity by adding back the minimum pension liability. The adjustmentadjustments related to add back the minimum pension liability is a revision to our calculation in 2005, which the Corporation believes more closely links ROIC to management performance. Further, the Corporation believespostretirement benefit plans. We believe that reporting ROIC provides investors with greater visibility into how effectively Lockheed Martin useswe use the capital invested in itsour operations. The Corporation usesWe use ROIC to evaluate multi-year investment decisions and as a long-term performance measure, and also uses ROICuse it as a factor in evaluating management performance under certain of our incentive compensation plans. ROIC is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP, and may not be defined and calculated by other companies in the same manner. ROIC should not be considered in isolation or as an alternative to net earnings as an indicator of performance. The following calculations ofWe calculate ROIC reflect the revision to the calculation discussed above for all periods presented.as follows:

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003 2002 2001   2006  2005  2004  2003  2002

Net earnings

  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053  $500  $(1,046)  $2,529  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053  $500

Interest expense (multiplied by 65%)1

   241   276   317   378   455    235   241   276   317   378
                

Return

  $2,066  $1,542  $1,370  $878  $(591)  $2,764  $2,066  $1,542  $1,370  $878
                

Average debt2, 5

  $5,077  $5,932  $6,612  $7,491  $8,782   $4,727  $5,077  $5,932  $6,612  $7,491

Average equity3, 5

   7,590   7,015   6,170   6,853   7,221    7,686   7,590   7,015   6,170   6,853

Average minimum pension liability3, 4, 5

   1,545   1,296   1,504   341   6 
                

Average benefit plan adjustments3, 4, 5

   2,006   1,545   1,296   1,504   341

Average invested capital

  $14,212  $14,243  $14,286  $14,685  $16,009   $14,419  $14,212  $14,243  $14,286  $14,685
                

Return on invested capital

   14.5%  10.8%  9.6%  6.0%  (3.7)%   19.2%   14.5%   10.8%   9.6%   6.0%
                

 

1

Represents after-tax interest expense utilizing the federal statutory rate of 35%.

2

Debt consists of long-term debt, including current maturities, and short-term borrowings (if any).

3

Equity includes non-cash adjustments, for other comprehensive losses, primarily for the additional minimum pension liability.liability in all years and the adoption of FAS 158 in 2006.

4

Minimum pension liability values

Average benefit plan adjustments reflect the cumulative value of entries identified in our Statement of Stockholders Equity under the captioncaptions “Adjustment for adoption of FAS 158” and “Minimum pension liability.” The annual minimum pension liabilitybenefit plan adjustments to equity were: 20012006 = ($33 million); 20021,883) million; 2005 = ($1,537 million);105) million; 2004 = ($285) million; 2003 = $331 million; 2004and 2002 = ($285 million); 2005 = ($105 million).1,537) million. As these entries are recorded in the fourth quarter, the value added back to our average equity in a given year is the cumulative impact of all prior year entries plus 20% of the current year entry value.

5

Yearly averages are calculated using balances at the start of the year and at the end of each quarter.

ITEM 7.MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Financial Section Roadmap

The financial section of our Annual Report includes management’s discussion and analysis, our consolidated financial statements, notes to those financial statements and a five-year summary of financial information. We have prepared the following summary, or “roadmap,” to assist in your review of the financial section. It is designed to give you an overview of our companyCompany and focus your review by directing you to some of the more important activities and events that occurred this year.

Lockheed Martin’sOur Business

Lockheed Martin CorporationWe principally researches, designs, develops, manufactures, integrates, operatesresearch, design, develop, manufacture, integrate, operate and sustainssustain advanced technology systems and products, and provide a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic and information services. We mainly serve customers in domestic and international defense, civil agencies, and homeland security. Our sales to agencies of the U.S. Government, including those to the Department of Defense (DoD), represented 85%84% of our sales in 2005.2006. Of the remaining 15%16% of sales, approximately 13% related to sales to international customers (including foreign military sales funded, in whole or in part, by the U.S. Government), with the remainder attributable to commercial and other customers. In 20042005 and 2003,2004, sales to agencies of the U.S. Government represented 80%85% and 78%80% of our total sales, respectively. Our main areas of focus are in defense, space, intelligence/intelligence, homeland security, and government information technology.

We operate in five principal business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Space Systems, Information Technology & Global Services (IT&GS), and Integrated Systems & Solutions (IS&S), and. The name of our IT&GS segment, formerly known as Information & Technology Services, (I&TS).was changed to better reflect the segment’s capabilities and service offerings following the growth experienced by our information technology and business process services businesses and through recent acquisitions. As a lead systems integrator, our products and services range from electronics and information systems, including integrated net-centric solutions, to missiles, aircraft spacecraft and launch services.spacecraft.

On February 22, 2007, we announced a realignment of our operations to enhance support for critical customer missions and increase our integration of resources. The realignment includes the combination of our IT&GS and IS&S business segments into a new business segment named Information Systems & Global Services (IS&GS). In addition, several smaller components of our businesses were realigned as discussed more fully under the caption “Business Segments” in Item 1. Business. These changes do not affect the historical results, discussion or presentation of our business segments as set forth in this Form 10-K. We will begin to report our financial results consistent with this new structure beginning with the first quarter of 2007.

Financial Section Overview

The financial section includes the following:

Management’s discussion and analysis, or MD&A (pages 4232 through 74)55) – provides our management’s view about industry trends, risks and uncertainties relating to Lockheed Martin, accounting policies that we view as critical in light of our business, our results of operations, including discussions about the key performance drivers of each of our business segments, our financial position and cash flows, commitments and contingencies, important events or transactions that have occurred over the last three years, and forward-looking information, as appropriate.

Reports related to the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting (pages 76(pages 56 through 79)58) – include the following:

 

A report from management, indicating our responsibility for financial reporting, the financial statements, and the system of internal control over financial reporting and an assessment of the effectiveness of those controls;

A report from Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, includingwhich includes their opinions on management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting; and

A report from Ernst & Young LLP includingwhich includes their opinion on the fair presentation of our financial statements based on their audits.

Financial statements (pages 8059 through 83)62) – include our consolidated statements of earnings, cash flows and stockholders’ equity for each of the last three years, and our balance sheet as of the end of the last two years. Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Notes to the financial statements (pages 8463 through 123)90) – provide insight into and are an integral part of our financial statements. The notes contain explanations of our significant accounting policies, details about certain of the captions on the

financial statements, information about significant events or transactions that have occurred, discussions about legal proceedings, commitments and contingencies, and selected financial information relating to our business segments. The notes to the financial statements also are prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Highlights

The financial section of our Annual Report describes our ongoing operations, including discussions about particular lines of business or programs, our ability to finance our operating activities, and trends and uncertainties in our industry and how they might affect our future operations. We also discuss those items affecting our results that were not considered in senior management’s assessment of the operating performance of our business segments. We separately disclose these items to assist in your evaluation of our overall operating performance and financial condition of theour consolidated company. We would like to draw your attention to the following items disclosed in this financial section and where you will find them:

 

Topic

  

Location(s)

Critical accounting policies:

Contract accounting/revenue recognition

Page 37 and page 64

Postretirement benefit plans

Page 38 and page 77

Environmental matters

Page 40, page 64 and page 83

Discussion of business segments

  Page 43 and page 85

Liquidity and cash flows

Page 49 and page 87

Page 52 and page 106

Page 54, page 86 and page 115

Page 58 and page 116

63
Liquidity

Capital structure and cash flowsresources

  Page 6650, page 60, page 62 and page 74

Legal proceedings, commitments and contingencies

Page 52 and page 82
Capital structure and resources

Stock-based compensation

  Page 68,42, page 81, page 8366 and page 102
Legal proceedings, commitments and contingenciesPage 70 and page 113
Stock-based compensationPage 72, page 89 and page 10375

Industry Considerations

Department of Defense Business

The President’s budget proposal for fiscal years 2008-2012 focuses on achieving a balanced budget while addressing the nation’s most critical needs and prosecuting the global war on terrorism. The Administration’s priorities include a strong national defense, tax relief to support economic growth, enhanced energy security, affordable health care, and further education improvement. Approximately 60% of the budget is devoted to defense and other matters of national security. Customer requirements for defense and related advanced technology systems for 20062007 and beyond will continue to be affected by the global war on terrorism through the continued need for military missions and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the related fiscal consequences of war. The war on terrorism has focused greater attention on

For fiscal year 2008, the security of our

homeland and better communication and interoperability between law enforcement, civil government agencies, intelligence agencies and our military services. At the same time, our nation’s overall defense posture continues to move toward a more joint-capabilities-based structure, which creates the ability for a more flexible response with greater force mobility, stronger space capabilities, enhanced missile defense and improved information systems capabilities and security.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) recently completed the Congressionally mandated 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR continues and accelerates the DoD’s prior commitment to a transformation of the military to focus more on the needs of its combatant commanders and to develop portfolios of joint capabilities rather than stove-piped programs. This movement towards horizontally-integrated structures is expected to become an organizing principle for the DoD in making investment decisions for future systems. We formed the Integrated Systems & Solutions business segment in 2003 to help us better focus our integrated solutions capabilities across the Corporation and enhance our ability to serve as a lead partner with the DoD. In 2005, we opened our Center for Innovation, a state-of-the-art facility for modeling and simulating our net-centric solutions for our customers.

The President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2007 and beyond presents a framework to reduce the federal budget deficit while prosecuting the global war on terrorism. The DoD budget is growing, but at lower levels than in the past few years, in order to continue the modernization and recapitalization that began earlier this decade. The budgetincludes $481.4 billion for the Department of Homeland Security is increasing, while spending across other non-defense federal agencies is anticipated to decline through 2011. These changes inDefense (the DoD), reflecting the President’s budget plan reflect aAdministration’s commitment to a 50% reduction in the federal budget deficit by 2009, and the sentiment expressed by the Federal Reserve that sustained federal deficits could hamper economic growth.

The President’s budget proposal includes $439 billion for the DoD, including $84 billion for procurementcontinued modernization of systems and $73 billion for research and development. Transformation of the DoD enterprise and accompanying budget pressures also may create additional opportunities for supply chain logistics, business process management and outsourcing of service functions by the military services, expanding the scope of private sector contracting opportunities at the DoD.

The Fiscal Year 2007-2011 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) projects sustained growth in the DoD’s top line budget, rising from $439 billion in 2007 to $502 billion in 2011. These estimates do not include any allowance to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, which are expected to be addressed through annual supplemental appropriations as required. The DoD’s continued emphasis on systems modernization is reflected in the proposed growth in the FYDP for Procurement, which is estimated to increase from $84 billion in 2007 to $118 billion in 2011. Research, Development, Test and Engineering (RDT&E) spending will remain roughly the same during this period, ranging from $73 billion in 2007 to $75 billion in 2009, declining then to $71 billion in 2011.

While subject to change in future specific budget submissions and annual appropriation by Congress, these estimates continue the Administration’s long stated intent to modernize theour Armed Forces while prosecuting the war on terrorism. This amount, called the base budget, excludes any funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism. These costs, discussed below, are requested as emergency supplemental funding. The differing trends in Procurementfiscal year 2008 DoD base budget is an increase of $45.9 billion, or 10.5% over the fiscal year 2007 base budget. The 2008 DoD base budget includes $101.7 billion for procurement of systems (Procurement) and RDT&E budgets reflect the maturation of programs emerging from RDT&E funding into procurement, such$75.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), known as the F-35 program.

investment accounts. The current year’s budget represents a nearly 8% increase in the investment accounts over fiscal year 2007 levels.

The Operations and Maintenance accounts, which contain the bulk of funding for training, logistics, services, and other sustainment activities, total approximately $164.7 billion for fiscal year 2008, an increase of $16.1 billion, or nearly 11%, over fiscal year 2007 levels. The balance of the budget, including amounts for military personnel and military construction, is funded at $139.9 billion, compared to the fiscal year 2007 level of $130.5 billion.

Over the Fiscal Years 2008-2012 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), total DoD funding is expected to rise to $538.5 billion in 2012, or 23.7% higher than the fiscal year 2007 budget. Total funding for the DoD over the first four years covered by the fiscal year 2008 FYDP proposal is $2,047 billion, an increase of $100 billion from the corresponding four fiscal years in the fiscal year 2007 plan released one year ago.

In addition to the past twobase DoD budget, the 2008 budget proposal includes $285.1 billion in supplemental funding for those activities not funded in the base budget for fiscal years Congress provided2007, 2008, and 2009, bringing the grand total for DoD requested in the President’s February 5, 2007 budget proposal to $766.5 billion. As part of the supplemental appropriationsamounts, the Administration is again requesting funding to defray costs for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. ApproximatelyFor fiscal year 2007, the Administration is requesting $93.4 billion for DoD, in addition to the $70 billion already approved by Congress in the fiscal year 2007 DoD Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2008, the Administration has included a request for $141.7 billion in supplemental, or bridge, funding for anticipated, but not yet fully defined, war-related costs that are

expected to be needed early in fiscal year 2008. In addition, the Administration has included an estimate of $50 billion has already been provided relativein the fiscal year 2009 DoD budget projection for continuing costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan deployments.

Spending for procurement of equipment and systems comprises about 24%, or $72.6 billion, of these requested supplemental funds for fiscal year 2007 and 2008, reflecting the Administration’s broadened definition of emergency funding related to 2006 and another $70 billion has been requested. These supplemental appropriations have enabledthe global war on terrorism. Supplemental funding enables the DoD to proceed on critical modernization and acquisition programs, versus using amounts available for those programs to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. While thereCongress has expressed concern about the size of supplemental budgets, it is no assuranceunlikely that additional supplemental appropriationsfunding for ongoing operations will be approvedsignificantly curtailed by Congress and, thus, we do not believe that sustained operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will materially impact the procurement and research and development budgetinvestment accounts in the near term.

We believe that our broad mix of programs and capabilities positionscontinues to position us favorably to support the current and future needs of the various agencies of the U.S. GovernmentDoD. Our strong positions in defenseair-power projection, precision-strike capability, and information technology. Our major programs and capabilities include: missile defense; space intelligence; command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR); air mobility aircraft; and air-power projection/precision-strike capability. In terms of size and long-term potential impact, twoaircraft are strongly supported in the 2008 DoD budget request. Two of our more significant programs are the F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. The Air Force approvedPresident’s fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $4.6 billion for the F-22 for full rate production, declared initial operational capability and rated the F-22 “mission capable” based on successful completion of operational testing. The DoD plansprogram to continue production of the F-22 through 2011aircraft under a multiyear contract expected to coincide with the anticipated production ofbe entered into this year, and $6.1 billion for the F-35 program, including procurement of 12 aircraft. In addition, funding of $420 million is proposed to avoid a gapsupport the last year of production under the C-130J multiyear contract, with 29 additional aircraft included in 5TH Generation fighter stealth and advanced avionics capabilities. While the ultimate number of F-35ssupplemental funding requests. The Air Force budget also supports our contract to be produced will continue to be subject to debate,upgrade the QDR and budget indicate support for the program.C-5 strategic airlift aircraft.

We are also represented in almost every aspect of land, sea, air and space-based missile defense, including the AEGIS Weapon Systemweapon system program, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile program, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program. In the areas of space intelligence and information superiority, we have leadership positions on programs such as the TSAT Mission Operations System (TMOS), Mobile User Objective System (MUOS), the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, and the Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-H), and in classified programs. We are broadly positioned across the DoD in the area of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR), including the Air Operations Center Weapons System Integrator (AOC WSI), the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T), the Combatant Commanders Integrated Command and Control System (CCIC2S), and the Global Communications Support System – Air Force (GCSS-AF).

We have expanded into adjacent military product lines utilizing our existing advanced technology products and services. Both the Littoral Combat Ship and the VH-71 U.S. Presidential Helicopter programs are supported in the budget request. We are a significant presence in information technology support and battlemodernization for the DoD. We are continuing to pursue opportunities to expand our sustainment and logistical support activities to enhance the longevity of the systems procured by our customers and improve supply chain management, command and control capabilities. In airlift, we havesee opportunities to grow our business in outsourcing of service functions and business process management. Recent acquisitions, such as Savi Technology, Inc., Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc. (PAE) and Aspen Systems Corporation, support our access to new business within the C-130J programDoD and are under contract to upgradeother agencies of the C-5 strategic airlift aircraft. ManyU.S. Government.

Most of the aforementioned programs require funding over several annual government budget cycles. There is always an inherent risk that these and other large, highly visibleDoD programs which are subject to annual appropriation by Congress could become potential targets for future reductions or elimination of funding to pay for other programs.

We continually explore opportunities to expand into adjacent product lines utilizing our existing advanced technology products and services, and have been successful in doing so through such programs as the Littoral Combat Ship and Marine One U.S. Presidential Helicopter programs. We also are continuing to pursue opportunities to expand our sustainment and logistical support activities to enhance the longevity of the systems procured by our customers. In addition, we have focused our efforts on select acquisitions, cost savings and improving efficiency. Through these activities, we have been able to pass along savings to our customers, mainly the U.S. Government.

Non-Department of Defense Business

WeThe war on terrorism has focused greater attention on the security of our homeland and the need for better communication and interoperability among law enforcement, civil government agencies, intelligence agencies, and our military services. Our experience in the defense arena, together with our core information technology expertise, has enabled us to provide products and services to a number of government agencies, other than the DoD, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Transportation and Energy, the U.S. Postal Service, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Library of Congress. AlthoughCertain of our linesacquisition activities, such as the acquisition of business addressing civil government needs are not dependent on defense budgets, they share manyPAE in 2006, have also given us access to new customers outside of the same risksDoD, such as our defense businesses, as well as other risks unique to the particular programs.

For example, although indemnification by the U.S. Government to cover potential claims or liabilities resulting from a failure of technologies developed and deployed may be available in some instances for our defense businesses, U.S. Government indemnification may not be available for homeland security purposes. While we maintain insurance for some business risks, it is not possible to obtain coverage to protect against all operational risks and liabilities. We do plan to seek, and in certain cases have obtained, limitation of such potential liabilities related to the sale and use of our homeland security products and services through qualification by the Department of Homeland Security under the “SAFETY Act” provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In the event we were to provide homeland security-related products and services to a customer without such qualification, we would not be afforded the benefit of the SAFETY Act’s cap on tort liability or U.S. Government indemnification. In addition, our information technology products and services related to Homeland Security may raise potential liabilities associated with privacy issues for which neither indemnification nor SAFETY Act coverage is available. Other risks unique to civil government programs may include development of competing products, technological feasibility and product obsolescence.State.

We have continued to expand our capabilities in critical intelligence, knowledge management and E-Governmente-Government solutions for our customers, including the Social Security Administration and the EPA, as well for the DoD. We also provide program management, business strategy and consulting, complex systems development and maintenance, complete life-cycle

software support, information assurance and enterprise solutions. Consistent with the President’s agenda, theThe expected growth in business process outsourcing has been enabled by rule changes for public/private competitions. Such a competition led tocompetitions, enabling the selection in 2005 of Lockheed Martin to operate the Federal Aviation Administration’s Automated Flight Services Station Network. In addition, recent trends continue to indicate an increase in demand by federal and civil government agencies for upgrading and investing in new information technology systems and solutions. As a result, we continue to focus our resources in support of infrastructure modernization that allows for interoperability and communication across agencies.

In addition, the increase incontinuing strong emphasis on homeland security may increase demand for our capabilities in areas such as air traffic management, ports, waterways and waterwayscargo security, biohazard detection systems for postal equipment, employee identification and credential verification systems, information systems security and other global security systems solutions.

Although our lines of business addressing civil government needs are not dependent on defense budgets, they share many of the same risks as our defense businesses, particularly the requirement for approval in annual appropriations acts. Other risks are unique to particular programs. For example, although indemnification by the U.S. Government to cover potential claims or liabilities resulting from a failure of technologies developed and deployed may be available in some instances for our defense businesses, U.S. Government indemnification may not be available for homeland security purposes. In addition, there are some instances where the U.S. Government could provide indemnification under applicable law, but elects not to do so. While we maintain insurance for some business risks, it is not possible to obtain coverage to protect against all operational risks and liabilities. We generally seek, and in certain cases have obtained, limitation of such potential liabilities related to the sale and use of our homeland security products and services through qualification by the Department of Homeland Security under the SAFETY Act provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Where we are unable to secure indemnification or qualification under the SAFETY Act or choose not to do so, we may nevertheless elect to provide the product or service when we think the related risks are manageable.

Space Business

We provide products and services to NASA, including the Space Shuttle program, mainly through our Space Systems and Information & Technology ServicesIT&GS business segments. In 2006, Space Systems was selected by NASA to design and build the agency’s next-generation human space flight crew transportation system known as Orion, with an initial contract value of approximately $4.0 billion. Orion is a key element of NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, and is planned to succeed the Space Shuttle in transporting a new generation of human explorers to and from space. In the fiscal year 2008 NASA budget proposal, Orion is supported at a level of $950.8 million. We also have a 50% equity interest in United Space Alliance, LLC which provides ground processing and

other operational services to the Space Shuttle program.

As with the DoD and other government funded programs, our government space programs require annual funding, subject to specific Congressional approval in annual appropriations acts.

We expectcontinued to competereceive new orders from the U.S. military in 2006 for NASA programs relatedsatellites to the next generation manned space exploration program.

Non-U.S.support missile defense, budgets have generally been flat or declining over the past decade. As a result, consolidation has been occurring in the European aerospace industry, resulting in fewer but largerbattlefield communications and more capable competitors.

Space Business

Sales ofother defense initiatives. The environment for our commercial launch vehicles and satellites business continues to be very competitive due mainly to low demand for new satellites as a result of excess capacity in the telecommunications industry. The reduction in demand has resulted in pricing pressures for both launch vehicles and satellites. Despite this environment, we did receive newWe are managing our commercial satellite business with an expectation of receiving fewer orders for commercial satellites and launch vehicles in both 2004 and 2005.due to market constraints. For a discussion of the results of operations of our Space Systems segment, see the “Discussion of Business Segments” section.

The above factors have impacted orders forIn December 2006, we completed the Evolved Expendableformation of United Launch Vehicle (EELV or Atlas V)Alliance, LLC (ULA), our next generation launch vehicle program in which we have made significant investments over the past few years. The Atlas V is available for both commercial and U.S. Government use. This program has required investment of funds for research and development, start-up and other nonrecurring costs, and launch facilities. Some of these expenditures have been funded under an agreement with the U.S. Government.

We have received a total of 19 launch assignments from the U.S. Government, nine of which are under contract and in backlog. The 19 launch assignments include seven that were reassigned in 2003 from the original EELV competition (referred to as “Buy 1”) as a result of our competitor’s violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. Two of the seven launch reassignments were for West Coast launches and, since then, the Air Force has assigned us four additional West Coast launches. To prepare for these, we upgraded our West Coast launch facilities, which required further investment in the EELV program (see Note 5 to the financial statements). We expect to recover the investment through the pricing of the West Coast launches.

The U.S. Government has been awarding launch missions incrementally as it continues to develop its acquisition strategy for future national missions. The U.S. Government plans to maintain assured access to space to the maximum extent possible and has recognized the need to fund additional EELV infrastructure costs created by the weaker-than-originally-anticipated commercial demand for launch services. We had three Atlas launches in 2005, including our fifth Atlas V commercial launch. As of year-end 2005, the Atlas family of launch vehicles had a record of 77 consecutive successful launches. Commercial orders and prices for the Atlas V launch vehicle to date have been lower than we originally expected during the development phase of the vehicle.

In 2005, we entered into an agreement with Boeing to create a joint venture that would combinewith The Boeing Company (Boeing), which combines the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. Government launches of our Atlas launch vehicles and Boeing’s Delta launch vehicles. The joint venture, named United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA), is structured as a 50-50 joint venture and would be accounted for as an equity investment. Under the terms of the joint venture agreement, Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles wouldwill continue to be available as alternatives on

individual launch missions. The agreement also stipulates that, upon closing of the transaction, Lockheed Martinjoint venture is a limited liability company in which we and Boeing will dismiss all claims against each otherown 50%. We contributed the assets of our Atlas launch vehicle business to ULA and ULA assumed the liabilities of that business, in the pending civil litigation related to a previous competitionexchange for launchesour 50% ownership interest. We are accounting for our investment in ULA under the Air Force EELV program (see Note 15 for a discussionequity method of that litigation).

accounting. The closingformation of the ULA transaction is subject to conditions to closing, including government and regulatory approvals and agreements in the United States and internationally. On August 9, 2005, the European Commission determined that ULA was compatible with European Union merger control regulation. On October 24, 2005, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requested additional information from Lockheed Martin and Boeing related to ULA in response to the pre-merger notice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR) submitted by the parties. The FTC’s “second request” extends the period that the FTC is permitted to review the transaction under the HSR Act. We currently plan to close the ULA transaction as soon as practicable following satisfaction of all the closing conditions. We dodid not expect that its formation will have a significantmaterial impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position for 2006. If the conditions to closing are not satisfied and the ULA transaction is not consummated by March 31,

In October 2006, either Boeing orwe sold our ownership interests in Lockheed Martin may terminate the joint venture agreement.

Lockheed-Khrunichev-EnergiaKhrunichev Energia International, Inc. (LKEI), and ILS International Launch Services, Inc. (ILS). LKEI is a joint venture we havehad with two Russian government-owned space firms which has exclusive rights to market launches of commercial, non-Russian-origin space payloads on the Proton family of rockets from a launch site in Kazakhstan.rockets. One of the joint venture partners, Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (Khrunichev), is the manufacturer

of the Proton launch vehicle and provider of the related launch services in Russia. Commercialservices. ILS was a joint venture between LKEI and us to market Atlas and Proton launch services are marketed aroundvehicles and services. In periods prior to the world through International Launch Services (ILS), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and LKEI. We consolidatesale of these interests, we consolidated the results of operations of LKEI and ILS into our financial statements based on our controlling financial interest. We received four new awards

Contracts for launches on Proton vehicles in 2005. Contracts for launch services usually requirerequired substantial advances from the customer prior to launch. At the end of 2005, $315 million of advances received from customers for Proton launch services not yet provided waswhich were included as a liability inon our balance sheet in customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred.

At December 31, 2005, those advances totaled $315 million. A sizeable percentage of the advances we receivereceived from customers for Proton launch services arewere sent to Khrunichev.Khrunichev and included on our balance sheet in inventories for launches under contract. At December 31, 2005, those payments to Khrunichev totaled $190 million. If a contracted launch service iswas not provided, a sizeable percentage of the related advance would have to be refunded to the customer by LKEI. In the event LKEI did not refund the advance, we would have been responsible for making the payment to certain customers.

Under the sale agreement, we will continue to be responsible to refund advances to certain customers if launch services are not provided and ILS does not refund the advance. Due to this continuing involvement with those customers of ILS, many of the risks related to this business have not been transferred and we did not recognize this transaction as a divestiture for financial reporting purposes. We deferred recognition of a net gain of approximately $60 million that otherwise would have been recognized on the sale of our customer. At year-end 2005, paymentsinterests in LKEI and ILS, and have continued to Khrunichev included in inventories for launches under contract totaled $190 million.include the related assets and liabilities on our balance sheet. Our ability to recover these advances may be affected by Khrunichev’s ability to providerealize the deferred net gain is dependent upon Khrunichev providing the contracted launch services and, in the event the launch services as well as economic conditions andare not provided, ILS’s ability to refund the political environment in Russia.advance. Through the end of 2005,December 31, 2006, all Proton launch services through LKEI and ILS have beenwere provided according to contract terms.

The Corporation has entered into an agreement with RD AMROSS, a joint venture of the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies Corporation and the Russian firm NPO Energomash, for the purchase, subject to certain conditions, of RD-180 booster engines for use in the Corporation’s Atlas launch vehicles. Terms of the agreement call for payments to be made to RD AMROSS upon the achievement of certain milestones in the manufacturing process. Payments of $70 million made under this agreement for engines not yet delivered were included in the Corporation’s inventories at December 31, 2005.

As discussed above, commercial satellite sales have continued to experience pricing pressures due to excess capacity. However, in the past two years, we have received six commercial satellite orders and are in active discussions for additional satellite orders. In addition to commercial activity, we also received new orders for government satellites in 2004 and 2005, including those under the MUOS program and certain classified activities.

Other Business Considerations

As a government contractor, we are subject to U.S. Government oversight. The government may ask about and investigate our business practices and audit our compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Depending on the results of those audits and investigations, the government could make claims against us. Under government procurement regulations and practices, an indictment of a government contractor could result in that contractor being fined and suspended from being able to bid on, or be awarded, new government contracts for a period of time. A conviction could result in debarment for a specific period of time. Similar government oversight exists in most other countries where we conduct business. Although we cannot predict the outcome of these types of investigations and inquiries with certainty, based on current facts, we do not believe that any of the claims, audits or investigations pending against us are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business or our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

We are exposed to risks associated with U.S. Government contracting, including technological uncertainties, dependence on fewer manufacturing suppliers and obsolescence, as well as Congressional appropriation and allotment of funds each year. Many of our programs involve the development and application of state-of-the-art technologies aimed at achieving challenging goals. As a result, setbacks, delays, cost growth and product failures can occur.

We have entered into various joint venture, teaming and other business arrangements to help support our portfolio of products and services in many of our lines of business. Some of these business arrangements include foreign partners. The conduct of international business introduces other risks into our operations, including changing economic conditions, fluctuations in relative currency values, regulation by foreign countries and the potential for unanticipated cost increases resulting from the possible deterioration of political relations.

The nature of our international business also makes us subject to the export control regulations of the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Commerce. If these regulations are violated, it could result in monetary penalties and denial of export privileges. We are currently unaware of any violations of export control regulations which are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business or our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Critical Accounting Policies

Contract Accounting / Revenue Recognition

A large partApproximately 85% of our business issales are derived from long-term contracts for design, development and production activities, which we account for consistent with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (AICPA) audit and accounting guide,Audits of Federal Government

Contractors,and the AICPA’s Statement of Position 81-1,Accounting for Performance of Construction-Type and Certain Production-Type Contracts. We also enter intoremainder attributable to contracts to provide other services that are not associated with design, development or production activities. We account for those contracts in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 104,Revenue Recognition, and other relevant revenue recognition accounting literature. We consider the nature of these contracts and the types of products and services provided when we determine the proper accounting method for a particular contract.

Accounting for Design, Development and Production Contracts

Generally, we record long-term, fixed-price design, development and production contracts on a percentage of completion basis using units-of-delivery as the basis to measure progress toward completing the contract and recognizing sales. For example, we use this method of revenue recognition on our C-130J tactical transport aircraft program Atlas and Proton launch vehicle programs, and Multiple Launch Rocket System program. For certain other long-term, fixed-price development and production contracts that, along with other factors, require us to deliver minimal quantities over a longer period of time or to perform a substantial level of development effort in comparison to the total value of the contract, sales are recorded when we achieve performance milestones or using the cost-to-cost method to measure progress toward completion. Under the cost-to-cost method of accounting, we recognize sales based on the ratio of costs incurred to our estimate of total costs at completion. As examples, we use this methodology for our
F-22 Raptor program and the AEGIS Weapon System program. In some instances, long-term production programs may require a significant level of development and/or a low level of initial production units in their early phases, but will ultimately require delivery of increased quantities in later, full rate production stages. In those cases, the revenue recognition methodology may change from the cost-to-cost method to the units-of-delivery method after considering, among other factors, program and production stability. As we incur costs under cost-reimbursement-type contracts, we record sales. Cost-reimbursement-type contracts include time and materials and other level-of-effort-type contracts. Examples of this type of revenue recognition include the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter system developmentSystem Development and demonstrationDemonstration (SDD) program and the THAAD missile defense program. Most of our long-term contracts are denominated in U.S. dollars, including contracts for sales of military products and services to foreign governments conducted through the U.S. Government (i.e., foreign military sales).

As a general rule, we recognize sales and profits earlier in a production cycle when we use the cost-to-cost and milestone methods of percentage of completion accounting than when we use the units-of-delivery method. In addition, our profits and margins may vary materially depending on the types of long-term contracts undertaken, the costs incurred in their performance, the achievement of other performance objectives, and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees, particularly under incentive and award fee contracts, is finally determined.

Incentives and award fees related to performance on design, development and production contracts, which are generally awarded at the discretion of the customer, as well as penalties related to contract performance, are considered in estimating sales and profit rates. Estimates of award fees are based on actual awards and anticipated performance. Incentive provisions which increase or decrease earnings based solely on a single significant event are generally not

recognized until the event occurs. Such incentives and penalties are recorded when there is sufficient information for us to assess anticipated performance.

Accounting for design, development and production contracts requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of the work required to be performed on many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenue and cost at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. Contract costs include material, labor and subcontracting costs, as well as an allocation of indirect costs. AssumptionsWe have to be mademake assumptions regarding labor productivity and availability, the complexity of the work to be performed, the availability of materials, the length of time to complete the contract (to estimate increases in wages and prices for materials), and the availability and timing of funding from theour customer. For contract change orders, claims or similar items, we apply judgment in estimating the amounts and assessing the potential for realization. These amounts are only included in contract value when they can be reliably estimated and realization is considered probable. We have accounting policies in place to address these as well as other contractual and business arrangements to properly account for long-term contracts.

Products and services provided under long-term design, development and production contracts make up the majorityrepresent approximately 85% of our business.sales for 2006. Therefore, the amounts we record in our financial statements using contract accounting methods and cost accounting standards are material. Because of the significance of the judgments and estimation processes, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if theour underlying circumstances were to change. For example, if underlying assumptions were to change such that our estimated profit rate at completion for all design, development and production contracts was higher or lower by 1%,one percentage point, our net earnings would increase or decrease by approximately $190$215 million. When adjustments in estimated contract revenues or costs are required, any changes from prior estimates are included in earnings in the current period.

Accounting for Other Services Contracts

Revenue under contracts for services other than those associated with design, development or production activities is generally recognized either as services are performed or when earned,a contractually required event has occurred, depending on the contract. This methodology is mainly used by our Information Technology & TechnologyGlobal Services segment. Services contracts primarily include operations and maintenance contracts, and outsourcing-type arrangements. Revenue under such contracts is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the period of contract performance, unless evidence suggests that the revenue is earned or the obligations are fulfilled in a different pattern. Costs incurred under these services contracts are expensed as incurred, except that initial “set-up” costs are capitalized and recognized ratably over the life of the agreement. Operating profit related to such services contracts may fluctuate from period to period, particularly in the earlier phases of the contract. Incentives and award fees related to performance on services contracts are recognized when they are fixed and determinable, generally at the date of award.

Other Contract Accounting Considerations

The majority of our sales are driven by pricing based on costs incurred to produce products or perform services under contracts with the U.S. Government. Cost-based pricing is determined under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The FAR provides guidance on the types of

costs that are allowable in establishing prices for goods and services under U.S. Government contracts. For example, costs such as those related to charitable contributions, advertising, interest expense, and public relations are unallowable, and therefore not recoverable through sales. In addition, we may enter into agreements with the U.S. Government that address the subjects of allowability and allocability of costs to contracts for specific matters. For example, most of the amounts we spend for groundwater treatment and soil remediation related to discontinued operations and sites operated in prior years are allocated to our current operations as general and administrative costs under FAR provisions and supporting agreements reached with the U.S. Government.

We closely monitor compliance with and the consistent application of our critical accounting policies related to contract accounting. Business segment personnel assess the status of contracts through periodic contract status and performance reviews. Also, regular and recurring evaluations of contract cost, scheduling and technical matters are performed by management personnel independent from the business segment performing work under the contract. Costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are reviewed for compliance with regulatory standards by our personnel, and are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. For other information on accounting policies we have in place for recognizing sales and profits, see our discussion under “Sales and earnings” in Note 1 to the financial statements.

Postretirement Benefit Plans

Most of our employees are covered by defined benefit pension plans (pension plans), and we provide health care and life insurance benefits to eligible retirees. Our earnings may be negatively or positively impacted by the amount of expense or income we record for our employee benefit plans. This is particularly true with expense or income for pension plans because those calculations are sensitive to changes in several key economic assumptions and workforce demographics. EffectiveNon-union represented employees hired after January 1, 2006 new non-union represented employees that we hire aredo not being covered byparticipate in our defined benefit pension plans, but are eligible to participate in a new defined contribution plan in addition to our other retirement savings plans. We currently plan to offer thoseThose employees have the ability to participate in our retiree medical plans, but willwe do not subsidize the cost of their participation effective January 1, 2006.participation.

We account for our pension plans using Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 87,Employers’ Accounting for Pensions.Pensions Those rules requireand FAS 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R). FAS 158 was adopted as of December 31, 2006. FAS 87 requires that the amounts we record, including the expense or income for the plans, be computed using actuarial valuations. These valuations include many assumptions, including assumptions we make relating to financial market and other economic conditions. Changes in key economic indicators can result in changes in the assumptions we use. The key year-end assumptions used to estimate pension expense or income for the following calendar year are the discount rate, the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets and the rates of increase in future compensation levels.

We use judgment in reassessing these assumptions each year because we have to consider current market conditions and, in the case of the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets, past investment experience, judgments about future market trends, changes in interest rates and equity market performance. We also have to consider factors like the timing and amounts of expected contributions to the plans and benefit payments to plan participants.

An example of how changes in these assumptions can affect our financial statements occurred in 2005. We reassess our pension plan assumptions each year. Based2006. The discount rate assumption is based on our review ofavailable yields on high-quality fixed income investments. After reviewing yields on high-quality

interest rateslong-term bonds at the end of the year,2006, and how those yields might apply to our projected pension cash flows, we loweredincreased our discount rate assumption to 5.625%5.875% at December 31, 2005,2006, compared to 5.75%5.625% used at the end of 2004. Before the end of 2005, we also performed a study of the rates of increase in future compensation levels. The results of that study indicated that it would be appropriate to reduce that rate from 5.50% to 5.0% at the end of 2005. These changes,This change, together with other factors such as the effects of the actual return on plan assets over the past few years, resulted in our projecting that the amount of pension expense for 20062007 will decrease by approximately 15% to 20%25% as compared to 20052006 expense. The primary drivers of this projected decrease were the change in the rate of future compensation increases as well as the growth in plan assets over the past year, including contributions we made to the pension trust. The decrease of 50 basis points in the compensation rate decreased the estimated 2006 expense by approximately $100 million. In addition, the higher asset base at the beginning of 2006 drove a higher expected return on assets for 2006, which was the main component of the remaining decrease in the expense. This decrease was partially offset by an increase of approximately $50 million in the estimated 2006 pension expense, resulting from the 12.5 basis point decrease in the discount rate assumption. The annual review of our pension plan assumptions also affects the pension liability recorded in our balance sheet.

At the end of each2006, prior to our adoption of the last few years,FAS 158, we have recorded a noncash after-tax adjustmentsadjustment in the stockholders’ equity section of our balance sheet to reflect a minimum pension liability for many of our pension plans. These adjustments wereWe calculated the minimum pension liability on a plan-by-plan basis and were determined by comparing the accumulated benefit obligation (ABO) for each plan to the fair value of that plan’s assets. TheWe recorded the amount by which the ABO exceedsexceeded the fair value of the plan assets, after adjusting for previously recorded accrued or prepaid pension cost for the plan, must be recorded as a minimum pension liability, with a corresponding increase in an intangible asset, if appropriate, and a reduction to stockholders’ equity. In 2005,2006, the minimum pension liability decreased from the balance recorded at December 31, 2005, primarily due to a higher than expected return on benefit plan assets in 2006 and the increase in the discount rate assumption, and therefore we recorded a noncash after-tax adjustment that increased stockholders’ equity by $1,186 million.

FAS 158 required us to recognize on a plan-by-plan basis the funded status of our postretirement benefit plans, with a corresponding adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, in stockholders’ equity. The funded status is measured as the difference between the fair value of the plan’s assets and the projected benefit obligation (PBO) of the plan. Upon its adoption, we recognized assets for all of our overfunded plans and liabilities for our underfunded plans on our balance sheet at December 31, 2006; recognized an adjustment to the ending balance of accumulated other comprehensive loss in stockholders’ equity, net of tax, for previously unrecognized net actuarial losses and prior service cost or credits; and eliminated the minimum pension liability balance and intangible assets related to our plans that had been recorded prior to its adoption. The previously unrecognized actuarial losses and prior service costs were netted against the plans’ funded status on our balance sheet in prior periods in accordance with FAS 87. At year-end, the noncash after-tax adjustment we recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss related to the adoption of FAS 158 reduced stockholders’ equity by $105 million primarily due to$3,069 million. The net impact of the minimum pension liabilities associated with nonqualified benefit plansliability recognized under FAS 87 and the changes in assumptions. At the end of 2004, the adjustment reducedadjustments recorded under FAS 158 was to reduce our stockholders’ equity by $285 million, mainly driven by the change in the discount rate. These adjustments did not impact earnings. The accumulated minimum pension liability balances in stockholders’ equity at the end of 2005 and 2004 were $(1,629) million and $(1,524) million, respectively. The amount of the minimum pension liability is computed at each year-end and could decrease or increase depending on changes in interest rates and other factors.$1,883 million.

U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) are a major factor in determining our pension funding requirements and govern the extent to which our pension costs are allocable to and recoverable under contracts with the U.S. Government. Funded amounts are recovered over time through the pricing of our products and services on U.S. Government contracts, and therefore are recognized in our net sales. The total funding requirement for pension plans under CAS in 20052006 was $498$663 million. This is also the CAS expense we recorded for the year and included in our segment results of operations. That amount was funded through discretionary prepayments we made to the plans in 2005. For 2006,2007, we expect our funding requirements and expense under CAS to increase.decrease. Also in 2006,2007, funding in addition to the amount calculated under CAS will likely be required under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) rules. Any additional amounts computed under thosethe IRC rules are considered to be prepayments under the CAS rules, and are recorded on our balance sheet and recovered in future periods. In 2006, 2005 and 2004, we made discretionary prepayments of $594 million, $980 million and $485 million, respectively, to the pension trust. Prepayments reduce the amount of future cash funding that will be required. Accordingly, although ourrequired under the CAS funding requirements are expected to increase over the $498 million required in 2005,and IRC rules and, as a result, we expect ourto have no required cash contributions to the pension plans to be $100 million to $110 million, primarily reflecting the additional funding required under Internal Revenue Code rules.in 2007.

The FAS/CAS pension adjustment represents the difference between pension expense calculated in accordance with FAS 87 and pension costs calculated and funded in accordance with CAS. Since the CAS expense is recovered through the pricing of our products and services on U.S. Government contracts, and therefore recognized in a particular segment’s net sales, the results of operations of our segments only include pension expense as determined and funded in accordance with CAS rules. Accordingly, the FAS/CAS adjustment is an amount included in the reconciliation of total segment operating profit to consolidated operating profit under GAAP. See the discussion of “Net Unallocated Corporate (Expense) Income” under “Discussion of Business Segments.”

In August 2006, the President signed into law new legislation related to pension plan funding in response to the public’s concern over the adequacy of pension plan funding, Congresssuch funding. The new law has been drafting legislation to address the amounteffect of annual contributions that companies are required to pay into their pension funds. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed their own versions of a pension funding bill and those bills are expected to go to conference during the latter part of the first quarter of 2006. It is expected that the conference process will produce compromises and changes in the Senate and House bills, and ultimate passage of a bill is uncertain. This uncertainty makes it difficult to quantify the potential impact to our pension funding. Generally, the Senate and House bills, as drafted, would accelerateaccelerating the required amount of our annual pension plan contributions which may have a material impactunder the Internal Revenue Code that most companies will be required to pay, effective in 2008. The legislation provides an exemption for us as well as other large U.S. defense contractors that delays the requirement to accelerate funding. The legislation also requires the CAS Board to modify its pension accounting rules by 2010 to better align the recovery of pension contributions on our cash flows for a few years beginning in 2007. Absent other changes,U.S. Government contracts with the subsequent annualnew accelerated funding requirements. The new funding requirements wouldfor large U.S. defense contractors will be expecteddelayed until the earlier of 2011 or the year in which the changes to decline in recognition of the accelerated contributions.CAS rules are effective.

Environmental Matters

We are a party to various agreements, proceedings and potential proceedings for environmental cleanup issues, including matters at various sites where we have been designated a potentially responsible party (PRP) by the EPA or by a state agency. We record financial statement accruals for environmental matters in the period that it becomes probable that a liability has been incurred and the amounts can be reasonably estimated (see the discussion under “Environmental matters”Matters” in Note 1 to the financial statements). Judgment is required when we develop assumptions and estimate costs expected to be incurred for environmental remediation activities due to along with other factors, difficulties in assessing the extent of environmental remediation to be performed, complex environmental regulations and remediation technologies, cost allowability issues, and agreements between PRPs to share in the cost of remediation as discussed below.below and other factors.

We enter into agreements (e.g., administrative orders, consent decrees) which document the extent and timing of our environmental remediation obligation. We are also involved in remediation activities at environmental sites where formal agreements exist but do not quantify the extent and timing of our obligation. Environmental cleanup activities usually cover several years, which makes estimating the costs more judgmental due to, for example, changing remediation technologies. To determine the costs related to cleanup sites, we have to assess the extent of contamination, the appropriate technology to be used to accomplish the remediation and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. We consider these factors in our estimates of the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation actions. In cases where a date to complete activities at a particular environmental site cannot be estimated by reference to agreements or otherwise, we project costs over an appropriate time frame not to exceed 20 years.

Given the required level of judgment and estimation, which has to occur, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if different assumptions were used or if circumstances were to change (e.g., a change in environmental standards).

If we are ultimately found to have liability at those sites where we have been designated a PRP, we expect that the actual costs of remediation will be shared with other liable PRPs. Generally, PRPs that are ultimately determined to be responsible parties are strictly liable for site cleanup and usually agree among themselves to share, on an allocated basis, the costs and expenses for investigation and remediation of hazardous materials. Under existing environmental laws, responsible parties are jointly and severally liable and, therefore, we are potentially liable for the full cost of funding such remediation. In the unlikely event that we were required to fund the entire cost of such remediation, the statutory framework provides that we may pursue rights of contribution from the other PRPs. The amounts we record do not reflect the fact that we may recover some of the environmental costs we have incurred through insurance or from other PRPs, which we are required to pursue by agreement and U.S. Government regulation.

Under agreements reached with the U.S. Government, somemost of the amounts we spend for groundwater treatment and soil remediation are allocated to our operations as general and administrative costs. Under existing government regulations, these and other environmental expenditures relating to our U.S. Government business, after deducting any recoveries received from insurance or other PRPs, are allowable in establishing prices of our products and services. As a result, a substantial amount of the expenditures we incur are being included in our sales and cost of sales according to U.S. Government agreement or regulation.

At the end of 2005,2006, the total amount of liabilities recorded on our balance sheet for environmental matters was $464$475 million. About 60%63% of the liability relates to sites in Redlands, Burbank and Glendale, California, and in Great Neck, New York, mainly for remediation of soil and groundwater contamination. The remainder of the liability relates to other properties (including current operating facilities and certain facilities operated in prior years) for which our obligation is probable and the financial exposure can be estimated. We have recorded assets totaling $353$386 million at December 31, 20052006 for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of future recovery in pricing of our products and services for U.S. Government businesses. The amount that is expected to be allocated to our commercial businesses has been expensed through cost of sales. Any recoveries we receive from other PRPs or insurance would reduce the allocated amounts included in our future U.S. Government sales and cost of sales.

Acquisition and Divestiture Activities

We continuously strive to strengthen our portfolio of products and services to meet the current and future needs of our customers. We accomplish this not only internally, through our independent research and development activities, but also through acquisitions. We selectively pursue the acquisition of businesses and investments that complement our current portfolio and allow expansion into adjacent product lines or access to new customers or technologies. We have made a number of such niche acquisitions of

businesses during the past several years. Over the last five years, we have completed 10paid $2.5 billion to complete 15 such acquisitions for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $1.5 billion.acquisitions. Conversely, we may also explore the sale of businesses, investments and surplus real estate. If we were to decide to sell any such businesses or real estate, the resulting gains, if any, would be recorded when the transactions are consummated and losses, if any, would be recorded when the value of the related asset is determined to be impaired.

Acquisitions

In 2006 and 2005, we completed acquisitions of the purchasefollowing businesses. There were no significant acquisition activities in 2004.

Year ended December 31, 2006 –

Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc., a provider of services to support military readiness, peacekeeping missions, nation-building activities, and disaster relief services (included in our IT&GS segment);

Savi Technology, Inc., a developer of active radio frequency identification solutions (included in our IS&S segment);

Aspen Systems Corporation, an information management company that delivers a range of business process and technology solutions (included in our IT&GS segment);

ISX Corporation, a provider of military decision systems and other information technology solutions (included in our Electronic Systems segment); and

HMT Vehicles, a military vehicle design company (included in our Electronic Systems segment).

Year ended December 31, 2005 –

The SYTEX Group, Inc. (SYTEX), a provider of information technology solutions and technical support services (included in our IT&GS segment);

STASYS Limited, a U.K.-based technology and consulting firm specializing in network communications and defense interoperability (included in our IS&S segment);

INSYS Group Limited, a U.K.-based diversified supplier of military communications systems, weapons systems and advanced analysis services (included in our Electronic Systems segment); and

Coherent Technologies, Inc., a supplier of high-performance, laser-based remote sensing systems (included in the Space Systems segment).

The total purchase price, including transaction-related costs, was approximately $480 million. Approximately $380 million ofaggregate cash paid for the purchase price was2006 acquisitions, as well as for amounts paid in 2006 related to acquisitions completed in 2005, was $1.1 billion. Additional payments totaling approximately $106 million are required to be made over the next three years related to these acquisitions, with approximately one-half of that amount payable over the next 12 months. The aggregate cash at closing, with most ofpaid for the remainder payable2005 acquisitions, as well as for amounts paid in 2006. The acquisition2005 related to acquisitions completed in prior periods, was $564 million. We accounted for these acquisitions under the purchase method of accounting. Purchaseaccounting, and therefore recorded purchase accounting adjustments were recorded by allocating the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values, and included recording goodwill of $395 million, of which $360 million will be amortized for tax purposes.values. The acquisition expands the Corporation’s information technology solutions and technical support services businesses with the DoD and other federal agencies. The operations of SYTEX are included in the Information & Technology Services business segment.

In 2005, we also completed the acquisitions of STASYS Limited, a U.K.-based technology and consulting firm specializing in network communications and defense interoperability; INSYS Group Limited, a U.K.-based diversified supplier of military communications systems, weapons systems and advanced analysis services; and Coherent Technologies, Inc., a U.S.-based supplier of high-performance, laser-based remote sensing systems. The aggregate cash purchase price for these three acquisitions was $180 million. Purchase accounting adjustments included recording combined goodwill of $164 million. These acquisitions were not material to our consolidated results of operations for 2005. In Januarythe years ended December 31, 2006 we acquired Aspen Systems Corporation, a U.S.-based company that provides a range of business process and technology solutions primarily to civil agencies of the U.S. Government. This acquisition is not expected to have a material impact on consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.2005.

Divestitures

During 2006, 2005 and 2004, we continued to execute the strategy to monetize certain of our equity investments and surplus real estate, as follows:

In January2006, we sold the following:

Our ownership interests in LKEI and ILS, as discussed in “Space Business” under “Industry Considerations.” The gain on the sale was deferred pending the provision of launch services for certain customers;

21 million shares of Inmarsat plc, which resulted in a gain, net of state income taxes, of $127 million in other income and expenses, and increased net earnings by $83 million ($0.19 per share);

The assets of Space Imaging, LLC, which resulted in a gain, net of state income taxes, of $23 million in other income and expenses, and increased net earnings by $15 million ($0.03 per share); and

Certain surplus land in California and Florida, which resulted in an aggregate gain, net of state income taxes, of $51 million in other income and expenses, and increased net earnings by $33 million ($0.08 per share).

In 2005, we completedsold the salefollowing:

Our interest in NeuStar, Inc., which resulted a gain, net of state income taxes, of $30 million in other income and expenses, and increased net earnings by $19 million ($0.04 per share);

16 million of our Inmarsat plc shares for $89 million. In addition, primarily as a result of a successful initial public offering by Inmarsat, we recognized a gain of $42 million which had previously been deferred. Together, these transactions resulted in gains, net of state income taxes, totaling $126 million in other income and expenses, and increased net earnings by $82 million ($0.18 per share); and

Our 25% interest in Intelsat, Ltd. to a private equity firm for $18.75 per share, or $752 million in total proceeds. The transaction, which resulted in the recording of a gain, net of state income taxes, of $47 million in other income and expenses, and an increase inincreased net earnings ofby $31 million ($0.07 per share).

In June 2005, Inmarsat plc (Inmarsat), a company in which we held a 14% interest, completed an initial public offering (IPO) of 150 million of its ordinary shares on the London Stock Exchange. The IPO had the effect of diluting our ownership to 8.9% and was the primary driver for our recognition of a $42 million deferred gain that was recorded in 2003 related to this investment. In October 2005,2004, we sold approximately 16 million of our Inmarsat shares for $89 million, further reducing our ownership percentage to 5.3%. These transactions resulted in the recording of gains, net of state income taxes, totaling $126 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in net earnings of $82 million ($0.18 per share). At December 31, 2005, we held 24 million shares of Inmarsat with a total market value of $146 million. In January 2006, we sold an additional 12 million shares of Inmarsat for $75 million. The gain is expected to increase 2006 net earnings by $47 million ($0.11 per share).

In the fourth quarter of 2005, we completed the sale of our interest in NeuStar, Inc. The transaction resulted in the recording of a gain, net of state income taxes, of $30 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in net earnings of $19 million ($0.04 per share).

In November 2004, a private equity firm purchased the outstanding shares of New Skies Satellites, N.V. (New Skies). We sold our shares for $148 million. The transaction which resulted in the recording of a gain, net of state income taxes, of $91 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in net earnings of $59 million ($0.13 per share). The carrying value of our investment in New Skies was marked to market through other comprehensive income prior to the sale.

Results of Operations

Since our operating cycle is long-term and involves many types of development and production contracts with varying production delivery schedules, the results of operations of a particular year, or year-to-year comparisons of recorded net sales and profits, may not be indicative of future operating results. The following discussions of comparative results among periods should be viewed in this context. All per share amounts cited in this discussion are presented on a “per diluted share” basis.

Net Sales

(In billions)

The following discussion of net sales and operating results provides an overview of our operations by focusing on key elements set forth in our statement of earnings. The “Discussion of Business Segments” which follows, describes the contributions of each of our business segments to our consolidated sales and operating profit for 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003.2004. We follow an integrated approach for managing the performance of our businessesbusiness, and generally focus the discussion of our results of operations around major lines of business versus distinguishing between products and services. As mentioned previously, most of our services revenues are generated in our Information Technology & TechnologyGlobal Services segment.

For 2005,2006, net sales were $37.2$39.6 billion, a 5%6% increase over 20042005 sales. Sales for 20042005 were $35.5$37.2 billion, an increase of 12%5% compared to 2003.2004. Sales, as compared to the prior year,years, increased in all segments except for anticipated reductions at Aeronautics in 2005, where there was a slight decline due to an anticipated reduction in combat aircraft deliveries.both 2006 and 2005. The U.S. Government is our largest customer, accounting for about 85%84% of our sales for 2005,2006, compared to 85% in 2005 and 80% in 2004 and 78% in 2003.2004.

Other income and expense, net was $519 million for 2006 compared to $449 million forin 2005. The increase was primarily due to an increase in interest income resulting from higher interest rates and amounts invested, and gains from the sale of land. Other income and expense, net increased $328 million from 2004 to 2005 compared to $121 million in 2004. This was due to an increase in investment income, gains from the sale of investments (primarily Intelsat and Inmarsat) and charges in 2004 for the early retirement of debt. Other income

Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted FAS 123(R),Share-Based Payments, and expenses,related rules, on a modified prospective basis (see Note 11). Under this method, we recognize compensation cost related to the estimated fair value of nonvested stock options and restricted stock granted in 2006 and prior years. Prior to January 1, 2006, we measured compensation cost for stock options using the intrinsic value method, but disclosed the pro forma effects on net increased $78earnings and earnings per share as if compensation cost had been recognized based upon the fair value-based method. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded compensation cost related to stock options and restricted stock totaling $111 million from 2003which is included in the statement of earnings in cost of sales. The net impact to 2004 dueearnings was $70 million ($0.16 per share). Compensation cost related to gains from the salerestricted stock in prior periods was not material. As of the COMSAT General businessDecember 31, 2006, we had $118 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested stock options, restricted stock units and the investment in New Skies.restricted stock awards. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.7 years.

State income taxes are included in our operations as general and administrative costs and, under U.S. Government regulations, are allowable in establishing prices for the products and services we sell to the U.S. Government. Therefore, a substantial portion of state income taxes is included in our sales and cost of sales. As a result, the impact on our operating profit (earnings before interest and taxes) of certain transactions and other matters disclosed in this Form 10-K is disclosed net of state income taxes.

Our operating profit for 2006 was $4.0 billion, an increase of 32% compared to 2005. Our operating profit for 2005 was $3.0 billion, an increase of 43% compared to 2004. Our operating profit

Interest expense for 20042006 was $2.1 billion, an increase of 3% compared to 2003.

$361 million, $9 million lower than 2005. Interest expense for 2005 was $370 million, $55 million lower than in 2004. Interest expense for 2004 was $425 million, $62 million lower than the amount for 2003. The decrease in interest expense in both years was primarily due to reductions in our debt outstanding.

Our effective tax rates were 29.6% for 2006, 30.2% for 2005, and 23.9% for 2004,2004. The effective rates for 2006 and 31.3%2005 were lower than the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to tax benefits related to extraterritorial income exclusion (ETI) and the tax deductions for 2003.U.S. manufacturing activities and dividends related to our employee stock ownership plan. In addition, the rate for 2006 included a tax benefit related to claims we filed with the Internal Revenue Service for additional ETI tax benefits for sales in previous years. This benefit decreased income tax expense by $62 million ($0.14 per share), and reduced our effective tax rate for 2006 by 1.7%. For each of the three years,2004, our tax rate was reduced from the statutory rate by the tax benefits related to export salesETI and tax deductible dividends. For 2005, our tax rate was reduced byIn addition, the new tax deduction for sales of products manufactured in the U.S. For 2004 our tax rate reflected a $144 million ($0.32 per share) reduction in our income tax expense primarily resulting from the closure of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) examination.examination, which reduced our effective rate by 8.6%.

Net earnings increased as compared to the prior year for the fourth straightfifth consecutive year. We reported net earnings of $2.5 billion ($5.80 per share) in 2006, compared to net earnings of $1.8 billion ($4.10 per share) in 2005 compared toand net earnings of $1.3 billion ($2.83 per share) in 2004 and earnings of $1.1 billion ($2.34 per share) in 2003.2004.

Discussion of Business Segments

We operate in five business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Space Systems, Information Technology & Global Services (IT&GS) and Integrated Systems & Solutions (IS&S), and Information & Technology Services (I&TS).

In theOur Aeronautics business segment salesdesigns, develops and produces advanced military aircraft, air vehicles and related technologies, primarily for U.S. and allied country military services. Combat aircraft programs include the F-35, F-22 and F-16 aircraft. The F-35 Lightning II is currently in the System Development and Demonstration phase. The successful first flight of the Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL)-variant aircraft took place in 2006. We have leveled comparedbeen producing the F-22 Raptor since 1997, and delivered 27 to the growth that had been experienced the last few years. This is largely due to lower sales on Combat Aircraft programs driven by declinesU.S. Air Force in 2006. We also received a contract for Production Lot 6 (24 aircraft) and advanced procurement funding for Production Lots 7, 8 and 9. A total of 67 F-16 volume, completion of initial ramp-up activities associated with F-35 development and F-22 production, and the completion of the F-22 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program. The number of F-16 deliveries is expected to continue to decline over the next few years; however, with the Greek Government’s contract authorization for 30 aircraft, firm production is currently planned through 2009. During 2005, 23 F-22sFighting Falcons were delivered and the program achieved initial operational capability, indicating its readiness for service. The Lot 5 contract for the production of 24 aircraft is expected to continue production of the F-22 into 2008, and we received advanced procurement contracts for production of Lots 6 and 7 associated with long lead activities. The initial F-35 test aircraft is being readied for its first flight and significant progress is being made on the carrier-based and short takeoff variants as well. Activity on the C-130J program included 15 aircraft deliveries in 2005. Through 2005, we have delivered 16 of the 60 aircraft under the multi-year award, and production and delivery of the remaining multi-year aircraft2006. Sales at Aeronautics are expected to continue into 2009.decline slightly in 2007, with a more substantial decline expected in 2008 primarily due to a projected reduction in F-16 revenue. In the area of Air Mobility, we produce the C-130J Super Hercules aircraft. We delivered 12 aircraft in 2006 to the U.S. military. A total of 186 have been ordered, with 147 of those delivered through 2006. In addition to aircraft production, the segment provides logistics support, sustainment, and upgrade modification and services for its aircraft.

The Electronic Systems business segment has a broad portfolio of products and services. Many of itstheir activities involve a combination of both development and production contracts with varying delivery schedules. This business segment has continued to expand its core competencies as a leading systems integrator, as demonstrated with its role as the prime contractor on the Presidential Helicopter and Littoral Combat Ship programs.program, which launched its first ship in 2006, and the Presidential Helicopter program.

The Space Systems business segment is a key supplier of space solutions, primarily to our U.S. Government customers. Growth will depend on our government satellite business and missile defense businesses, as well as activities associated with the NASA Orion program. With the formation of ULA and the sale of our ability to capture market share. The commercial satelliteinterests in LKEI and ILS, growth in the segment will be less dependent on launch vehicle industries continue

to be very competitive, with resulting pricing pressures. During 2005, the final Titan IV was launched and we now plan to continue to provide launchvehicles. Launch services to our U.S. Government customers with our Atlas V vehicle through the EELV program.are expected to be provided by ULA.

The IT&GS and IS&S and I&TS business segments continue to focus their capabilities in providing information technology services to defense, intelligence and other government customers.customers, including expanding those capabilities through our acquisition activities over the past two years. We expect continued strong growth in providing information technology solutions to government agencies.

In the following table of financial data, total operating profit of the business segments is reconciled to the corresponding consolidated amount. The reconciling item “Net unallocated Corporate expense” includes the FAS/CAS pension adjustment (see the discussion below)of “Postretirement Benefit Plans” under “Critical Accounting Policies”), earnings and losses from equity investments, interest income, costs for certain stock-based compensation programs, the effects of items not considered part of management’s evaluation of segment operating performance, and Corporate costs not allocated to the operating segments, as well as other miscellaneous Corporate activities.

The FAS/CAS pension adjustment represents the difference between pension expense or income calculated for financial reporting purposes in accordance with FAS 87, and pension costs calculated and funded in accordance with U.S. Government CAS, which are reflected in the business segment results. CAS is a major factor in determining our pension funding requirements, and governs the extent of allocability and recoverability of pension costs on government contracts. The CAS expense is recovered through the pricing of our products and services on U.S. Government contracts, and therefore recognized in segment net sales. The results of operations of the segments only include pension expense as determined and funded in accordance with CAS rules.

This table shows net sales and operating profit of the business segments and reconciles to the consolidated total.

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003 

Net Sales

    

Aeronautics

  $11,672  $11,785  $10,206 

Electronic Systems

   10,580   9,729   8,996 

Space Systems

   6,820   6,359   6,024 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   4,131   3,851   3,422 

Information & Technology Services

   4,010   3,802   3,176 
             
  $37,213  $35,526  $31,824 
             

Operating profit

    

Aeronautics

  $994  $899  $690 

Electronic Systems

   1,113   969   858 

Space Systems

   609   489   403 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   365   334   291 

Information & Technology Services

   351   285   226 
             

Total business segments

   3,432   2,976   2,468 

Net unallocated Corporate expense

   (446)  (887)  (449)
             
  $2,986  $2,089  $2,019 
             

    (In millions)  2006   2005   2004 

Net Sales

      

Aeronautics

  $11,401   $11,672   $11,785 

Electronic Systems

   11,304    10,580    9,729 

Space Systems

   7,923    6,820    6,359 

Information Technology & Global Services

   4,605    4,010    3,802 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   4,387    4,131    3,851 
   $39,620   $37,213   $35,526 

Operating profit

      

Aeronautics

  $1,170   $994   $899 

Electronic Systems

   1,297    1,113    969 

Space Systems

   746    609    489 

Information Technology & Global Services

   430    351    285 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   405    365    334 

Total business segments

   4,048    3,432    2,976 

Net unallocated Corporate expense

   (95)   (446)   (887)
   $3,953   $2,986   $2,089 

The following segment discussions also include information relating to negotiated backlog for each segment. Total negotiated backlog was approximately $75$76 billion and $74$75 billion at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, respectively. This amount included both funded backlog (unfilled firm orders for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated by the customer – Congress in the case of U.S. Government agencies) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding has not yet been appropriated). Negotiated backlog does not include unexercised options or task orders to be issued under indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Funded backlog was approximately $35$41 billion at December 31, 2005.2006.

The Aeronautics segment generally includes fewer programs that have much larger sales and operating results than programs included in the other segments. Therefore, due to the large number of comparatively smaller programs in the remaining segments, the discussions of the results of operations of these business segments generally focus on lines of business within the segments rather than on specific programs. The following tables of financial information and related discussions of the results of operations of our business segments are consistent with the presentation of segment information in Note 1615 to the financial statements.

Segment Operating Profit

(In millions)

Aeronautics

Aeronautics’ operating results included the following:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003  2006  2005  2004

Net sales

  $11,672  $11,785  $10,206  $11,401  $11,672  $11,785

Operating profit

   994   899   690   1,170   994   899

Backlog at year-end

   29,580   30,489   37,580   25,464   29,580   30,489

Net sales for Aeronautics decreased by $1132% in 2006 compared to 2005. The anticipated decline in net sales was due to a decline in Air Mobility sales that was partially offset by an increase in Combat Aircraft sales. Air Mobility sales declined by $524 million orprimarily due to C-130J deliveries (12 in 2006 compared to 15 in 2005) and lower volume on the C-5 program. Combat Aircraft sales increased by $279 million mainly due to higher F-35 and F-22 volume, partially offset by reduced volume on F-16 programs.

Net sales for Aeronautics decreased by 1%, in 2005 compared to 2004. The decrease was mainly due to anticipated declines in Combat Aircraft, which were partially offset by growth in Air Mobility. Combat Aircraft sales decreased by $480 million for the year primarily due to declines in F-16 volume, which more than offset higher F-35 and F-22 volume. The sales growth in Air Mobility was due to additional C-130J deliveries (15 in 2005 compared to 13 in 2004) and higher volume on other Air Mobility programs.

Net salesOperating profit for Aeronauticsthe segment increased by 15%18% in 20042006 compared to 2003. The majority of the increase in sales, $1.5 billion, was2005. Combat Aircraft operating profit increased by $111 million, mainly due to higher volume on the F-35 F-16 and F-22 Combat Aircraftprograms, and improved performance on F-16 programs. In 2004, 83 F-16s were delivered, 21 more thanThe improvement for the year was also attributable in 2003. The remaining

increasepart to the fact that in sales was2005, operating profit included a reduction in earnings on the F-35 program. Air Mobility operating profit increased $73 million, mainly due to higher C-5improved performance on C-130J sustainment activities in Air Mobility. There were 13 C-130J deliveries in 2004 compared to 15 deliveries in 2003.2006.

Operating profit for the segment increased by 11% in 2005 compared to 2004. The increase was due to higher Air Mobility operating profit that exceeded a decline in Combat Aircraft operating profit. Air Mobility operating profit increased $100 million mainly due to improved performance and increased deliveries on the C-130J program. Combat Aircraft operating profit declined due to decreased F-16 deliveries (69 in 2005 compared to 83 in 2004) and reduced earnings on the F-35 development program, which more than offset increased volume and improved performance on the F-22 program.

Operating profit for the segment increased by 30% in 2004 compared to 2003. Combat Aircraft operating profit increased $95 million primarily as a result of higher sales volume on the programs discussed above and improved performance on the F-22 program. The remaining increase was primarily attributable to $85 million in operating profit recognized on the C-130Js delivered in 2004. The Corporation began recognizing profits on C-130J deliveries in 2004 upon resolution of certain technical aircraft performance risks, manufacturing performance improvements and the achievement of stable production as a result of securing a multi-year contract in 2003.

Backlog decreased in 20052006 as compared to 20042005 primarily as a result of sales volume on the F-35 and F-16 programs as well as deliveries of C-130J aircraft.program.

Electronic Systems

Electronic Systems’ operating results included the following:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003  2006  2005  2004

Net sales

  $10,580  $9,729  $8,996  $11,304  $10,580  $9,729

Operating profit

   1,113   969   858   1,297   1,113   969

Backlog at year-end

   19,932   18,239   17,339   20,994   19,932   18,239

Net sales for Electronic Systems increased 7% in 2006 as compared to 2005. Higher volume in platform integration activities led to increased sales of $344 million at Platform, Training & Transportation Solutions (PT&TS). Maritime Systems & Sensors (MS2) sales increased $267 million primarily due to surface systems activities. Air defense programs contributed to increased sales of $118 million at Missiles & Fire Control (M&FC).

Net sales for Electronic Systems increased 9% in 2005 as compared to 2004. Higher volume in tactical and surface systems programs contributed to increased sales of $495 million at Maritime Systems & Sensors (MS2). Platform, Training & Transportation Solutions (PT&TS)MS2. PT&TS sales increased $310 million primarily due to platform integration activities. Air defense and fire control programs contributed to increased sales of $40 million at Missiles & Fire Control (M&FC).M&FC.

Net salesOperating profit for Electronic Systemsthe segment increased 8%by 17% in 2004 as2006 compared to 2003. The increase in sales was due to higher volume in2005. Operating profit increased by $75 million at MS2 and M&FC. Higher volume on surface systems programs accounted for most of MS2’s sales growth of $450 million. M&FC’s sales increased $265 million, primarilymainly due to higher volume on fire controlsurface systems and tactical missileundersea programs. Higher volume on air defense programs contributed to a $56 million increase in operating profit at M&FC. PT&TS operating profit increased $54 million mainly due to improved performance on distribution technology activities.

Operating profit for the segment increased by 15% in 2005 compared to 2004. Operating profit increased by $80 million at M&FC mainly due to improved performance on fire control and air defense programs. Performance on surface systems programs contributed to an increase

in operating profit of $50 million at MS2. PT&TS operating profit increased $10 million primarily due to improved performance on simulation and training programs.

Operating profit for the segment increased by 13% in 2004 compared to 2003. Operating profit increased $145 million due to improved performance on tactical missile and fire control programs at M&FC and on radar programs at MS2. The decrease in operating profit at PT&TS was due to a $25 million loss provision recorded in the third quarter of 2004 on certain international simulation and training contracts.

The increase in backlog during 2006 over 2005 over 2004 resulted primarily from increased orders on development programs.certain platform integration programs in PT&TS.

Space Systems

Space Systems’ operating results included the following:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003  2006  2005  2004

Net sales

  $6,820  $6,359  $6,024  $7,923  $6,820  $6,359

Operating profit

   609   489   403   746   609   489

Backlog at year-end

   15,925   16,112   12,813   18,768   15,925   16,112

Net Sales for Space Systems increased by 16% in 2006 compared to 2005. During the year, sales growth in Satellites and Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems (S&DMS) offset declines in Space Transportation. The $1.1 billion growth in Satellites sales was mainly due to higher volume on both government and commercial satellite programs. There were five commercial satellite deliveries in 2006 compared to no deliveries in 2005. Higher volume in both fleet ballistic missile and missile defense programs accounted for the $114 million sales increase at S&DMS. In Space Transportation, sales declined $102 million primarily due to lower volume in government space transportation activities on the Titan and External Tank programs. Increased sales on the Atlas Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Launch Capabilities (ELC) contract partially offset the lower government space transportation sales.

Net sales for Space Systems increased by 7% in 2005 compared to 2004. During the year, sales growth in Satellites and Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems (S&DMS)S&DMS offset declines in Launch Services.Space Transportation. The $410 million increase in Satellites sales was due to higher volume on government satellite programs that more than offset declines in commercial satellite activities. There were no commercial satellite deliveries in 2005, compared to four in 2004. Increased sales of $235 million in S&DMS were attributable to the fleet ballistic missile and missile defense programs. The $180 million decrease in Launch Services’Space Transportation’s sales was mainly due to having three Atlas launches in 2005 compared to six in 2004.

Net salesOperating profit for Space Systemsthe segment increased by 6%22% in 20042006 compared to 2003, as increases2005. Operating profit increased in Satellites, of $320Space Transportation and S&DMS. The $72 million and S&DMS of $75 million more than offset a $55 million decrease in Launch Services. The increasegrowth in Satellites operating profit was due to increasedprimarily driven by the volume and performance on government satellite programs and one additional commercial satellite deliverydeliveries. In Space Transportation, the $39 million growth in 2004.operating profit was attributable to improved performance on the Atlas program resulting from risk reduction activities, including the first quarter definitization of the ELC contract. In S&DMS, the $26 million increase in operating profit was primarily attributabledue to higher volume and improved performance on both the fleet ballistic missile programs. The lower volume in Launch Services was mainly due to a decline in the Titan launch vehicle program, which more than offset increases in both Atlas launches (six in 2004 compared to five in 2003) and Proton launches (four in 2004 compared to two in 2003).missile defense programs.

Operating profit for the segment increased 25% in 2005 compared to 2004. Operating profit increased in Launch Services,Space Transportation, S&DMS and Satellites. In Launch Services,Space Transportation, the $60 million increase in operating profit was primarily attributable to improved performance on the Atlas vehicle program. Satellites’ operating profit increased $35 million due to the higher volume and improved performance on government satellite programs, which more than offset the decreased operating profit due to the decline in commercial satellite deliveries. The $20 million increase in S&DMS was attributable to higher volume on fleet ballistic missile and missile defense programs.

In December 2006, we completed a transaction with Boeing to form ULA, a joint venture which combines the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. Government launches of our Atlas launch vehicles and Boeing’s Delta launch vehicles (see related discussion on our “Space Business” under “Industry Considerations”). We are accounting for our investment in ULA under the equity method of accounting. As a result, our share of the net earnings or losses of ULA are included in other income and expenses, and we will no longer recognize sales related to launch vehicle services provided to the U.S. Government. In 2006, we recorded sales to the U.S. Government for Atlas launch services totaling approximately $600 million. We have retained the right to market commercial Atlas launch services.

We contributed assets to ULA, and ULA assumed liabilities related to our Atlas business in exchange for our 50% ownership interest. The net book value of the assets contributed and liabilities assumed was approximately $200 million at

Operating profitDecember 1, 2006, the date of closing. We accounted for the segment increased 21%transfer at net book value, with no gain or loss recognized. If our proportionate share of ULA’s net assets exceeds the book value of our investment, we would recognize the difference ratably over the next 10 years in 2004other income and expenses. We currently anticipate that our 50% ownership share of ULA’s net assets will exceed the book value of our investment in ULA, but that amount remains subject to adjustment based on the final working capital and value of other assets which we and Boeing contributed to ULA. In addition, under our agreement with Boeing, we could be required to make an additional cash contribution to ULA based on changes in the working capital of the business and other assets contributed. Any additional capital contribution would have the effect of increasing our investment and decreasing the difference between our investment and our share of ULA’s net assets. This would decrease the amount that we would amortize and recognize in other income and expenses in the future. We currently estimate that the amount by which our share of ULA’s net assets will exceed our investment will be between $200 million and $300 million. Both we and Boeing also have agreed to provide approximately $225 million in additional funding to ULA. As of December 31, 2006, we had provided $3 million of additional funding to ULA (see Note 14). The formation of ULA did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position for 2006.

We sold our ownership interests in LKEI and ILS in October 2006 (see related discussion on our “Space Business” under “Industry Considerations”). LKEI is a joint venture we had with Russian government-owned space firms which has exclusive rights to market launches of commercial, non-Russian-origin space payloads on the Proton family of rockets. In periods prior to the sale of these interests, we consolidated the results of operations of LKEI and ILS into our financial statements based on our controlling financial interest. In 2006, we recorded sales related to Proton launch services totaling approximately $110 million.

The increase in backlog during 2006 as compared to 2003. Launch Services’ operating profit increased $65 million. This increase was primarily due to U.S. Government support of the Atlas program and the benefit resulting from the first quarter termination of a launch vehicle contract by a commercial customer, offset by a decline in activities on the Titan launch vehicle program. Satellites’ operating profit increased $20 million due to commercial satellite deliveries, partially offset by lower profitability on a government satellite program. In 2003, government satellites operating profit reflected a $30 million charge related to a NASA satellite program.

The decrease in backlog during 2005 as compared to 2004 was mainly due to salesorder volume related to the Orion program and government satellite programs.

Integrated Systems & Solutions

Integrated Systems & Solutions’ operating results included the following:

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003

Net sales

  $4,131  $3,851  $3,422

Operating profit

   365   334   291

Backlog at year-end

   3,974   4,586   4,350

Net sales for IS&S increasedprograms, partially offset by 7% in 2005 as compared to 2004 and by 13% in 2004 as compared to 2003. For both comparative periods, the sales increases were primarily attributable to a higher volume of intelligence, defense and information assurance activities.

Operating profit for the segment increased 9% in 2005 as compared to 2004 and by 15% in 2004 as compared to 2003. The increases in operating profit for both comparative periods were primarily attributable to higher volume and performance improvements on the activities described above.

The$2.6 billion decrease in backlog during 2005 compared to 2004 was due toresulting from the U.S. Army’s termination for convenienceformation of ULA and the Aerial Common Sensor contract.sale of our interests in LKEI and ILS.

Information Technology & TechnologyGlobal Services

Information Technology & TechnologyGlobal Services’ operating results included the following:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003  2006  2005  2004

Net sales

  $4,010  $3,802  $3,176  $4,605  $4,010  $3,802

Operating profit

   351   285   226   430   351   285

Backlog at year-end

   5,414   4,560   4,817   5,680   5,414   4,560

Net sales for I&TSIT&GS increased by 15% in 2006 as compared to 2005. The increase in sales was primarily attributable to higher volume of $642 million in Information Technology and Defense Services. The sales increases include the impact of organic growth as well as the purchase of Pacific Architects and Engineers in September 2006.

Net sales for IT&GS increased by 5% in 2005 as compared to 2004. The increase in sales was primarily attributable to higher volumes of $460 million in Information Technology and Defense Services, which more than offset a sales decline of $250 million in NASA programs.

Information Technology’s sales increase includes the impact of organic growth and the purchase of SYTEX in March 2005.

Net sales for I&TS increased by 20% in 2004 as compared to 2003. The increase in sales was primarily attributable to higher volume of $510 million in Information Technology. Information Technology’s sales improved due to organic growth, as well as the net impact of our purchase of Affiliated Computer Services’ federal government IT business and the concurrent sale of our commercial IT business in November 2003. The remaining increase in sales of $120 million was primarily attributable to higher volume in Defense Services, which offset a decline in NASA sales.

Operating profit for the segment increased by 23% in 2006 as compared to 2005, and in 2005 as compared to 2004. The operating profit increase in both years was mainly due to higher volume and improved performance in Information Technology and Defense Services.

The IT&GS backlog for 2006 compared to 2005 remained relatively unchanged.

Integrated Systems & Solutions

Integrated Systems & Solutions’ operating results included the following:

    (In millions)  2006  2005  2004

Net sales

  $4,387  $4,131  $3,851

Operating profit

   405   365   334

Backlog at year-end

   4,999   3,974   4,586

Net sales for IS&S increased by 6% in 2006 as compared to 2005 and by 7% in 2005 as compared to 2004. For both comparative periods, the sales increases were primarily attributable to a higher volume of intelligence, defense and information assurance activities.

Operating profit for the segment increased by 26%11% in 20042006 as compared to 2003.2005 and by 9% in 2005 as compared to 2004. The increases in operating profit increase was mainly duefor both comparative periods were primarily attributable to Information Technologyhigher volume and program performance.performance improvements on the activities described above.

The increase in backlog during 2006 compared to 2005 was attributabledue to growthorder volume in our Information Technology line of business.intelligence, defense and information assurance activities.

Unallocated Corporate (Expense) Income, Net

The following table shows the components of net unallocated Corporate (expense) income.

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003   2006   2005   2004 

FAS/CAS pension adjustment

  $(626) $(595) $(300)  $(275)  $(626)  $(595)

Items not considered in segment operating performance

   173   (215)  (153)   214    173    (215)

Stock compensation expense

   (111)        

Other, net

   7   (77)  4    77    7    (77)
            $(95)  $(446)  $(887)
  $(446) $(887) $(449)
          

The FAS/CAS pension adjustment represents the difference between pension costs calculated and funded in accordance with CAS and pension expense determined in accordance with FAS 87. That difference is not included in segment operating results and therefore is a reconciling item between operating profit from the business segments and consolidated operating profit. The CAS funding amount is allocated among the business segments and is included as an expense item in the segments’ cost of goods sold. A majority of the cost is also passed along to our customers through contract pricing, and is consequently included in the segments’ sales.

The following table shows the CAS funding that is included as expense in the segments’ operating results, the related FAS (expense) income,expense, and the resulting FAS/CAS pension adjustment:

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003   2006   2005   2004 

FAS 87 expense

  $(1,124) $(884) $(484)  $(938)  $(1,124)  $(884)

Less: CAS expense and funding

   (498)  (289)  (184)   (663)   (498)   (289)
          

FAS/CAS pension adjustment – expense

  $(626) $(595) $(300)  $(275)  $(626)  $(595)
          

As disclosed in Note 13 to the financial statements, FAS 87 expense increaseddecreased in 2006 primarily due to higher recognized net actuarial losses and higher service costthe change in 2005, and due to a lower expected return onthe rate of future compensation increases as well as the growth in plan assets in addition2006, including contributions we made to these other two factors in 2004.the pension trust.

Certain items are excluded from segment results as part of senior management’s evaluation of segment operating performance consistent with the management approach promulgated by FAS 131,Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information. For example, gains and losses related to the disposition of businesses or investments managed by Corporate, as well as other Corporate activities such as charges recorded related to the early repayment of debt, are not considered by management in evaluating the operating performance of business segments. Therefore, for purposes of segment reporting, the following items were included in “Unallocated Corporate (expense) income, net” for 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003:2004:

 

(In millions, except per share data)

  Operating
Profit
(Loss)
  

Net

Earnings
(Loss)

  

Earnings

(Loss)

Per Share

 

Year ended December 31, 2005

    

Gains related to Inmarsat transactions

  $126  $82  $0.18 

Gain on sale of interest in Intelsat

   47   31   0.07 

Gain on sale of interest in NeuStar

   30   19   0.04 

Impairment charge related to a satellite

   (30)  (19)  (0.04)
             
  $173  $113  $0.25 
             

Year ended December 31, 2004

    

Charge for Pit 9 litigation

  $(180) $(117) $(0.26)

Charge for early retirement of debt

   (154)  (100)  (0.22)

Gain on sale of interest in New Skies

   91   59   0.13 

Gain on sale of COMSAT General business

   28   4   0.01 

Benefit from closure of an IRS examination

   —     144   0.32 
             
  $(215) $(10) $(0.02)
             

Year ended December 31, 2003

    

Charge for early retirement of debt

  $(146) $(96) $(0.21)

Charge related to exit from the commercial mail sorting business

   (41)  (27)  (0.06)

Gain on partial reversal of Space Imaging charge

   19   13   0.03 

Gain on sale of the commercial IT business

   15   8   0.02 
             
  $(153) $(102) $(0.22)
             
    (In millions, except per share data)  

Operating

Profit

(Loss)

   

Net

Earnings
(Loss)

   

Earnings

(Loss)

Per Share

 

Year ended December 31, 2006

      

Gain on sale of interest in Inmarsat

  $127   $83   $0.19 

Gains on sale of surplus land

   51    33    0.08 

Earnings from expiration of AES transaction indemnification

   29    19    0.04 

Gain on sale of Space Imaging’s assets

   23    15    0.03 

Debt exchange expenses

   (16)   (11)   (0.03)

Benefit from claims for ETI tax benefits

       62    0.14 
   $214   $201   $0.45 

    (In millions, except per share data)  

Operating

Profit

(Loss)

   

Net

Earnings
(Loss)

   

Earnings

(Loss)

Per Share

 

Year ended December 31, 2005

      

Gains related to Inmarsat transactions

  $126   $82   $0.18 

Gain on sale of interest in Intelsat

   47    31    0.07 

Gain on sale of interest in NeuStar

   30    19    0.04 

Impairment charge related to a satellite

   (30)   (19)   (0.04)
   $173   $113   $0.25 

Year ended December 31, 2004

      

Charge for Pit 9 litigation

  $(180)  $(117)  $(0.26)

Charge for early retirement of debt

   (154)   (100)   (0.22)

Gain on sale of interest in New Skies

   91    59    0.13 

Gain on sale of COMSAT General business

   28    4    0.01 

Benefit from closure of an IRS examination

       144    0.32 
   $(215)  $(10)  $(0.02)

We adopted FAS 123(R)Share-Based Payments on January 1, 2006 and recognized stock compensation expense of $111 million ($70 million after-tax or $0.16 per share) for year ended December 31, 2006.

The increase in the “Other, net” component of unallocated Corporate (expense) income net of $70 million from 2005 to 2006 and $84 million from 2004 to 2005 was primarily due to higher interest income due to a larger invested cash balance andfrom higher interest rates in 2005. The decrease of $81 million from 2003 to 2004 was primarily due to lower earnings on our equity investments in 2004.and amounts invested.

Liquidity and Cash Flows

We have a balanced cash deployment and disciplined growth strategy to enhance our businesses, increase shareholder value and position ourselves to take advantage of new business opportunities when they arise. Consistent with that strategy, we have invested in our business (e.g.(e.g., capital expenditures, independent research and development), made selective acquisitions of businesses, repurchased shares, increased our dividends and opportunistically reduced and refinanced our debt and made select acquisitions of businesses.debt. The following provides an overview of our execution of this strategy.

Net Cash Provided Byby Operating

Activities

(In millions)

Operating Activities

Net cash provided by operating activities increased by $589 million to $3.8 billion in 2006 as compared to 2005 after having increased by $270 million to $3.2 billion in 2005 as compared to 2004 after having increased by $1.1 billion2004. In 2006, the increase was primarily attributable to $2.9 billionan increase in 2004 asnet earnings of $704 million, and also to an increase in working capital improvements of $150 million compared to 2003.2005. The remaining change in cash between the periods was due to income tax payments, postretirement benefit plan contributions, and the timing of various other operating activities. In 2005, the increase was primarily attributable to an increase in net earnings of $559 million as compared to 2004, which more than offset a $386 million reduction in working capital improvements between the years. In 2004, the increase was attributable to an increase in net earnings of $213 million, and also to an increase in working capital improvements of $799 million compared to 2003. The remaining increase in cash between thethose periods was due to the timing of income tax payments and the timing of various other operating activities. The focus on improving our cash management processes continues to contribute to the aggregate reduction in operating working capital accounts (receivables,

inventories, accounts payable, and customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred), including an aggregate reduction of $106$256 million in 20052006 as compared to a reduction of $492$106 million in 2004.2005. Although we will continue to focus on management of operating working capital accounts, we do not expect the rate of improvements we have experienced in prior periods to continue.

Investing Activities

Capital expenditures – Capital expenditures for property, plant and equipment amounted to $893 million in 2006, $865 million in 2005 and $769 million in 2004 and $687 million in 2003.2004. We expect our capital expenditures to increase over the next twothree years to exceed 2006 expenditures consistent with the expected growth in our business and to support specific program requirements.

Acquisitions, divestitures and other activities –We have a process to selectively identify businesses for acquisition that meet our financial targets, help build a balanced portfolio and provide disciplined growth strategy. We have focused on government information technology providers, systems integrators and complementary technologies.growth. We paid $1,122 million, including amounts related to acquisitions completed in prior years, for the acquisition of new businesses in 2006, compared with $564 million for four businesses in 2005 and $91 million for two businesses in 2004 and $645 million for two businesses in 2003.2004.

During 2006, we received proceeds of $132 million from the sale of our remaining shares in Inmarsat, $24 million from the sale of assets of Space Imaging, LLC, and $24 million from the sale of Lockheed Martin Intersputnik. During 2005, we received proceeds of $935 million from the divestiture of non-core equity investments. The proceeds included $752 million from the sale of our investment in Intelsat, Ltd., $140 million from the sale of Inmarsat shares and the redemption of certain Inmarsat equity-related investments, and $33 million from the sale of our NeuStar investment.

During 2004, we received $140 million from the sale our investment in New Skies Satellites, N.V. was soldand $50 million related to a private equity firm. Our portionthe reduction of the proceeds was $148 million, $140 million of which was receivedour investment in 2004. Also during 2004, we received cash from Inmarsat Group Holdings, Ltd. amounting to $50 million which reduced the amount of our investment. In 2003, Inmarsat Ventures, Ltd. was acquired by a consortium of private equity firms in a leveraged buyout transaction. In exchange for our interest, we received cash of $114 million and retained an ownership interest in the new Inmarsat holding company, Inmarsat Group Holdings, Ltd., valued at $96 million. Also in 2003, we paid $130 million related to our guarantee of Space Imaging, LLC’s borrowings under its credit facility.

Financing Activities

Issuance and repayment of long-term debt –Cash provided from operations has been our principal source of funds to refinance and reduce our long-term debt. During 2006, we paid $353 million to complete an exchange of debt and $210 million related to scheduled debt repayments. In 2005, we used $133 million of cash for the early retirement and scheduled repayment of long-term debt. In 2004, we used $1.1 billion of cash for the early retirement and scheduled repayment of long-term debt. Of that amount, $951 million related to the early retirement of debt through tender offers for which we incurred $163 million of associated costs. In 2003, we issued $1.0 billion of floating rate convertible senior debentures that bear interest at three-month LIBOR less 25 basis points, reset quarterly. We used the proceeds of that issuance, along with cash from operations, to repay $2.2 billion of debt in advance of its maturity and retire other high cost debt. We used $175 million of cash for debt issuance and repayment costs to complete those transactions in 2003.

Share repurchases and dividends –We also used cash in each of the last three years for common share repurchase activity as follows: $2,104 million for 27.6 million common shares in 2006, all of which were settled during the year along with $11 million for 0.2 million shares purchased in 2005; $1,222 million for 19.7 million common shares in 2005, of which $1,211 million for 19.5 million of those common shares, as well as $99 million for 1.8 million common shares purchased in 2004, was settled during the year; and $772 million for 14.7 million common shares in 2004, of which $673 million for 12.9 million common shares was settled during the year; and $482 million in 2003 for 10.7 million common shares. These purchases were made under ayear. Our share repurchase program in place forauthorizes the repurchase of up to 88108 million shares of our common stock from time-to-time at management’s discretion, including 4520 million of additional shares that wereour Board authorized for repurchase under the program in September 2005.2006. As of December 31, 2005,2006, we had repurchased a total of 46.173.7 million shares under the program, and there remained approximately 41.934.3 million shares that may be repurchased in the future.

The payment of dividends on our common shares is one of the key components of our balanced cash deployment strategy. Shareholders were paid cash dividends of $538 million in 2006, $462 million in 2005 and $405 million in 2004 and $261 million in 2003.2004. We have increased our quarterly

dividend rate in each of the last three years. We paid a quarterly dividenddividends of $0.30 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2006 and $0.35 per share for the last quarter of 2006; $0.25 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2005 and $0.30 per share for the last quarter of 2005. We paid a quarterly dividend of2005; and $0.22 per share during each of the first three quarters of 2004 and $0.25 per share for the last quarter of 2004. In 2003, we paid quarterly dividends of $0.12 per share during each of the first three quarters of the year and $0.22 per share for the last quarter of 2003.

Capital Structure and Resources

At December 31, 2005 our total2006, we held cash and cash equivalents of approximately $1.9 billion and short-term investments of $381 million. Our long-term debt, net of unamortized discounts, amounted to $5.0$4.4 billion. Our long-term debt is almost entirelymainly in the form of publicly issued notes and debentures. The majority of our long-term debt bears interest at fixed rates; however,We have $1.0 billion of convertible debentures issued in 2003that have a floating interest rate based on LIBOR. In 2005,LIBOR; however, at December 31, 2006, we repaid $133 million ofhad an agreement in place to swap variable interest rates on the debentures for a fixed interest rate. With this swap agreement, our entire long-term debt including scheduledportfolio effectively bears interest at fixed rates.

In August 2006, we issued $1.1 billion of new 6.15% Notes due 2036 (the New Notes). The New Notes were issued in exchange for a portion of certain then outstanding debt securities (the Old Notes), and earlycash consideration of $343 million. Holders also received a cash payment representing accrued and unpaid interest on the Old Notes. We accounted for the transaction as an exchange of debt repayments. under EITF 96-19,Debtor’s Accounting for a Modification or Exchange of Debt Instruments. The cash consideration of $343 million is being amortized over the life of the New Notes as a discount, using the effective interest method, and recorded in interest expense. The New Notes are included on our balance sheet under the caption long-term debt, net and are presented net of the unamortized discount. The expenses associated with the exchange, net of state income tax benefits, totaled $16 million and reduced net earnings by $11 million ($0.03 per share).

Our stockholders’ equity amounted to $6.9 billion at December 31, 2006, a decrease of $1.0 billion from December 31, 2005. The decrease was primarily due to the adoption of FAS 158, which required recognition of a $3.1 billion adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive loss to recognize the net unrecognized actuarial losses and prior service costs, as well as the elimination of the previously recorded minimum pension liability and intangible asset, to record the unfunded status of our postretirement benefit plans. That adjustment was partially offset by a $1.2 billion minimum liability adjustment recorded prior to the adoption of FAS 158, resulting in a net decrease of $1.9 billion. See the discussion of “Postretirement Benefit Plans” under “Critical Accounting Policies” and disclosure in Note 12 for additional information. Net earnings and stock plan activities more than offset the reduction in stockholders’ equity as a result of our share repurchases and the payment of dividends.

Through our debt repayment activities, our long-term debt balance has declined $3.1 billion over the last five years from $9.9$7.5 billion at December 31, 2000. We improved our2001. Our debt-to-total capitalization ratio from 58%was 39% at December 31, 2000 to2006, unchanged from 39% at December 31, 2005.

Debt-To-TotalDebt-to-Total Capital Ratio

Our stockholders’ equity amounted to $7.9 billion at December 31, 2005, an increase of $846 million from December 31, 2004. The increase came from net earnings and stock plan activities partially offset by our share repurchases and payment of dividends.

Return on invested capital (ROIC) improved by 370470 basis points during 20052006 to 14.5%19.2%. We define ROIC as net incomeearnings plus after-tax interest expense divided by average invested capital (stockholders’ equity plus debt), after adjusting stockholder’s equity by adding back ouramounts related to postretirement benefit plans, including those for minimum pension liability balance.liabilities and, for 2006, the adoption of FAS 158. We believe that reporting ROIC provides investors with greater visibility into how effectively Lockheed Martin uses the capital invested in its operations. We use ROIC to evaluate multi-year investment decisions and as a long-term performance measure. We also use ROIC as a factor in evaluating management performance under certain of our incentive compensation plans. The adjustment to add back the minimum pension liability is a revision to our calculation in 2005 which we believe more closely links ROIC to management performance.

ROIC is not a measure of financial performance under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, in the U.S., and may not be defined and calculated by other companies in the same manner. ROIC should not be considered in isolation or as an alternative to net earnings as an indicator of performance. See Note (f) to the Consolidated Financial Data – Five Year Summary on page 4130 of this Form 10-K for additional information concerning how we calculate ROIC. That information reflects the revision to the calculation as discussed in the preceding paragraph for all periods presented.

Revised Return On Invested Capital Ratio

Capital Ratio(1)

(1)Calculation was revised in 2005. See Note (f) to the Consolidated Financial Summary –
Five Year Summary on page 41 for additional information on the calculation.

At December 31, 2005,2006, we had in place a $1.5 billion revolving credit facility which expires in July 2010. There were no borrowings outstanding under the facility at December 31, 2005.2006. Borrowings under the credit facility would be unsecured and bear interest at rates based, at our option, on the Eurodollar rate or a bank Base Rate (as defined). Each bank’s obligation to make loans under the credit facility is subject to, among other things, our compliance with various representations, warranties and covenants, including covenants limiting our ability and the ability of certain of our subsidiaries to encumber our assets, and a covenant not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio. We cancelled our $500 million 364-day credit facility on June 17, 2005.

We have agreements in place with banking institutions to provide for the issuance of commercial paper. There were no commercial paper borrowings outstanding at December 31, 2005.2006. If we were to issue commercial paper, the borrowings would be supported by the $1.5 billion credit facility.

We have an effective shelf registration statement on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide for the issuance of up to $1 billion in debt securities. If we were to issue debt under this shelf registration, we would expect to use the net proceeds for general corporate purposes. These purposes may include repayment of debt, working capital needs, capital expenditures, acquisitions and any other general corporate purpose.

We actively seek to finance our business in a manner that preserves financial flexibility while minimizing borrowing costs to the extent practicable. Our management continually reviews changes in financial, market and economic conditions to manage the types, amounts and maturities of our indebtedness. We may at times refinance existing indebtedness, vary our mix of variable-rate and fixed-rate debt, or seek alternative financing sources for our cash and operational needs.

Cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, cash flow from operations and other available financing resources are expected to be sufficient to meet anticipated operating, capital expenditure and debt service requirements, as well as acquisition and other discretionary investment needs, projected over the next three years.

Contractual Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

At December 31, 2005,2006, we had contractual commitments to repay debt, make payments under operating leases, settle obligations related to agreements to purchase goods and services, and settle other long-term liabilities. Capital lease obligations were negligible. Payments due under these long-term obligations and commitments are as follows:

 

   Payments Due By Period

(In millions)

  Total  Less Than
1 Year
  

1-3

Years

  3-5
Years
  

After

5 Years

Long-term debt(a)

  $4,986  $202  $136  $248  $4,400

Operating lease obligations

   1,157   261   386   262   248

Purchase obligations

          

Operating activities

   23,566   11,001   7,880   2,752   1,933

Capital expenditures

   462   344   118   —     —  

Other long-term liabilities

   1,289   213   256   169   651
                    

Total contractual cash obligations

  $31,460  $12,021  $8,776  $3,431  $7,232
                    

   Payments Due By Period
    (In millions)  Total  Less Than 1
Year
  

1-3

Years

  

3-5

Years

  

After

5 Years

Long-term debt(a)

  $4,784  $34  $347  $2  $4,401

Other long-term liabilities

   1,651   276   388   194   793

Operating lease obligations

   1,145   288   465   271   121

Purchase obligations:

          

Operating activities

   22,771   12,996   7,520   1,561   694

Capital expenditures

   302   264   38   —     —  

Total contractual cash obligations

  $30,653  $13,858  $8,758  $2,028  $6,009

(a)

Long-term

The total amount of long-term debt includes scheduled principal payments only.excludes unamortized discounts of $345 million (see Note 7).

Long-term debt includes scheduled principal payments only. Generally, our long-term debt obligations are subject to, along with other things, compliance with certain covenants, including covenants limiting our ability and the ability of certain of our subsidiaries to encumber our assets.

Amounts related to other long-term liabilities in the preceding table represent the contractual obligations for certain long-term liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2006. Such amounts mainly include expected payments under deferred compensation plans, non-qualified pension plans, environmental liabilities and business acquisition agreements. Obligations related to environmental liabilities represent our estimate of remediation payment obligations under government consent decrees and agreements, excluding amounts reimbursed by the U.S. Government in its capacity as a potentially responsible party.

Purchase obligations related to operating activities include agreements and requirements contracts that give the supplier recourse to us for cancellation or nonperformance under the contract or contain terms that would subject us to liquidated damages. Such agreements and contracts may, for example, be related to direct materials, obligations to sub-contractors and outsourcing arrangements. Total purchase obligations in the preceding table include approximately $22 billion related to contractual commitments entered into as a result of contracts we have with our U.S. Government customers. However, the U.S. Government would generally be required to pay us for any costs we incur relative to these commitments if they were to terminate the related contracts “for convenience” pursuant to FAR. For example, if we had commitments to purchase goods and services that were entered into as a result of a specific contract we received from our U.S. Government customer and the customer terminated the contract for their convenience, any amounts we would be required to pay to settle the related commitments, as well as amounts previously incurred, would generally be reimbursed by the customer. This would also be true in cases where we perform sub-contract work for a prime contractor under a U.S. Government contract. The termination for convenience language may also be included in contracts with foreign, state and local governments. In addition, weWe also have contracts with customers that do not include termination for convenience provisions, including contracts with commercial customers.

Total purchasePurchase obligations in the preceding table related tofor capital expenditures generally include amounts for facilities and equipment at various of our locations, related to customer contracts.

Amounts related to “Other long-term liabilities” in the preceding table represent the contractual obligations for certain long-term liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2005. Such amounts mainly include expected payments under deferred compensation plans, non-qualified pension plans and environmental liabilities. Obligations related to environmental liabilities represent our estimate of remediation payment obligations under government consent decrees and agreements, excluding amounts reimbursed by the U.S. Government in its capacity as a potentially responsible party under an agreement entered into in 2000.

We also may enter into industrial participation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, as a condition to obtaining orders for our products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. These agreements are designed to enhance the social and economic environment of the foreign country by requiring the contractor to promote investment in the country. Offset agreements may be satisfied through activities that do not require us to use cash, including transferring technology, providing manufacturing and other consulting support to in-country projects, and the purchase by third parties (e.g., our vendors) of supplies from in-country vendors. These agreements may also be satisfied through our use of cash for such activities as purchasing supplies from in-country vendors, providing financial support for in-country projects, and building or leasing facilities for in-country operations. We do not commit to offset agreements until orders for our products or services are definitive. Offset programs generally extend over several years and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with offset requirements. No such penalties have been incurred during the last five years. The amounts ultimately applied against our offset agreements are based on negotiations with the customer and generally require cash outlays that represent only a fraction of the original amount in the offset agreement. At December 31, 2005,2006, we had outstanding offset agreements totaling $8.4$8.2 billion, primarily related to our Aeronautics segment, that extend through 2015.2016. To the extent we have entered into purchase obligations at December 31, 20052006 that also satisfy offset agreements, those amounts are included in the preceding table.

With respect to the formation of ULA, both we and Boeing have committed to provide up to $25 million each as additional capital contributions and $200 million each in other financial support to ULA, as required. The non-capital funding will be made in the form of a revolving credit agreement between us and ULA or guarantees of ULA financing with third parties, in either case, to the extent necessary for ULA to meet its working capital needs. We have agreed to provide this support for at least five years, and would expect to fund our requirements with cash on hand. To satisfy our non-capital financial support commitment, we and Boeing put into place at closing a revolving credit agreement with ULA. At December 31, 2006, we had made $3 million in payments under our capital contribution commitment, and no amounts had been drawn on the revolving credit agreement. In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified ULA related to certain financial support arrangements (e.g., letters of credit, surety bonds or foreign exchange contracts provided by either party) and guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations and that it will not be necessary to fulfill the guarantees contemplated under the cross-indemnities.

We have entered into standby letter of credit agreements and other arrangements with financial institutions and customers mainly relating to advances received from customers and/or the guarantee of future performance on some of our

contracts. In some cases, we may also guarantee the contractual performance of third parties. At December 31, 2005,2006, we had outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and guarantees, as follows:

 

   Commitment Expiration By Period

(In millions)

  Total
Commitment
  Less Than
1 Year
(a)
  

1-3

Years(a)

  3-5
Years
  

After

5 Years

Standby letters of credit

  $2,630  $2,425  $171  $18  $16

Surety bonds

   434   79   352   3   —  

Guarantees

   2   1   1   —     —  
                    

Total commitments

  $3,066  $2,505  $524  $21  $16
                    

   Commitment Expiration By Period
    (In millions)  Total
Commitment
  Less Than 1
Year (a)
  

1-3

Years (a)

  3-5
Years
  

After

5 Years

Standby letters of credit

  $2,571  $2,421  $95  $49  $6

Surety bonds

   502   204   298   —     —  

Guarantees

   21   —     21   —     —  

Total commitments

  $3,094  $2,625  $414  $49  $6
(a)Approximately $2,262$2,260 million and $49$18 million of standby letters of credit in the “Less Than 1 Year” and “1-3 Year” periods, respectively, and approximately $38$44 million of surety bonds in the “Less Than 1 Year” period, are expected to renew for additional periods until completion of the contractual obligation.

Included in the table above is approximately $200$180 million representing letter of credit and surety bond amounts for which related obligations or liabilities are also recorded inon the balance sheet, either as reductions of inventories, as customer advances and amounts in excess of costs

incurred, or as other liabilities. Approximately $2$2.0 billion of the standby letters of credit in the table above were to secure advance payments received under an F-16 contract from an international customer. These letters of credit are available for draw down in the event of our nonperformance, and the amount available will be reduced as certain events occur throughout the period of performance in accordance with the contract terms. Similar to the letters of credit for the F-16 contract, other letters of credit and surety bonds are available for draw down in the event of our nonperformance.

Under the agreement to sell our ownership interests in LKEI and ILS (see related discussion on our “Space Business” under “Industry Considerations”), we will continue to be responsible to refund customer advances to certain customers if launch services are not provided and ILS does not refund the advance. We expect to recognize the $60 million deferred net gain on the transaction when our responsibility to refund the advances expires, which we generally believe will be in 2008 based on the expected Proton launch schedule, which is subject to change. Our ability to realize the deferred net gain is dependent upon Khrunichev providing the contracted launch services or, in the event the launch services are not provided, ILS’s ability to refund the advance. The amount we could be required to pay is expected to increase over time due to the payment of additional advances by the customers to ILS related to the specific launches we have guaranteed, and will be reduced by the occurrence of those launches. At December 31, 2005,2006, the total amount that could be payable under the guarantees, approximating the total contract value of the guaranteed launches, was $344 million. That amount may be partially mitigated by approximately $70 million of cash we had no material off-balanceretained that, absent any requirements to make payments under the guarantees, will be paid to the buyer over time as the launches occur. Our balance sheet arrangementsat December 31, 2006 included current and noncurrent assets relating to LKEI and ILS totaling $265 million, and current and noncurrent liabilities totaling $335 million, both of which will be reduced as those arrangementsthe launch services are definedprovided. The assets relate primarily to advances we have made to Khrunichev for future launches, and the liabilities relate primarily to advances we have received from customers for future launches. Any potential earnings impact resulting from our inability to realize the assets we have recorded related to LKEI and ILS would be partially mitigated by our not recognizing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).deferred gain on the transaction. Through December 31, 2006, Proton launch services provided through ILS were provided according to contract terms.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure of Market Risk

Our main exposure to market risk relates to interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates. Our financial instruments that are subject to interest rate risk principally include fixed-rate and floating ratefloating-rate long-term debt. IfAt December 31, 2006, we had an agreement in place to swap variable interest rates wereon our $1.0 billion of convertible debentures based on LIBOR for a fixed interest rate through August 15, 2008. With this swap agreement, our long-term debt portfolio effectively bears interest at fixed rates. We have designated the agreement as a cash flow hedge of the forecasted LIBOR-based variable interest payments. Based on our evaluation at the inception of the hedging agreement and in subsequent periods, we expect the hedging relationship to change by plus or minus 1%,be highly effective in achieving the offsetting cash flows attributable to the hedged variable interest payments, resulting in a fixed net interest expense would increase or decrease by approximately $10 million related to our floating rate debt. The estimated fair valuesreported on the statement of earnings. We determined that the Corporation’s long-term debt instrumentshedging relationship remained effective at December 31, 2005 aggregated approximately $6.2 billion, compared2006. The fair value of the interest rate swap agreement is adjusted at each balance sheet date, with a carrying amountcorresponding adjustment to other comprehensive income. At December 31, 2006, the fair value of approximately $5.0 billion. The majority of our long-term debt obligations are not callable until maturity. We have usedthe interest rate swaps in the past to manage our exposure to fixed and variable interest rates; however, at year-end 2005, we had no such agreements in place.swap agreement was not material.

We use forward foreign exchange contracts to manage our exposure to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates, and generally do so in ways that qualify for hedge accounting treatment. These exchange contracts hedge the fluctuations in

cash flows associated with firm commitments or specific anticipated transactions contracted in foreign currencies, or hedge the exposure to rate changes affecting foreign currency denominated assets or liabilities. Related gains and losses on these contracts, to the extent they are effective hedges, are recognized in income at the same time the hedged transaction is recognized or when the hedged asset or liability is adjusted. To the extent the hedges are ineffective, gains and losses on the contracts are recognized in the current period. At December 31, 2005,2006, the fair value of forward exchange contracts outstanding, as well as the amounts of gains and losses recorded during the year then ended, were not material.

We evaluate the credit quality of potential counterparties to derivative transactions and only enter into agreements with those deemed to have minimal credit risk. We periodically monitor changes to counterparty credit quality as well as our concentration of credit exposure to individual counterparties. We do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements Pending Adoption

In December 2004,July 2006, the FASB issued FAS 123(R),Interpretation No. (FIN) 48,Share-Based PaymentsAccounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, which will impact our net earnings and earnings per share and change the classification of certain elements of the statement of cash flows. FAS 123(R) requires stock options and other share-based payments made to employees to be accounted for as compensation expense and recorded at fair value, and to reflect the related excess tax benefit received upon exercise of the options, if any, in the statement of cash flows as a financing activity inflow rather than an adjustment of operating activity as currently presented. We currently use the Black-Scholes model to compute the fair value of our stock options in connection with our disclosure of the pro forma effects on net earnings and earnings per share as if compensation cost had been recognized for such options at the date of grant (see Note 1 to the financial statements).

We adopted FAS 123(R), and related SEC rules included in SAB No. 107, on a modified prospective basisis effective January 1, 2006. We will continue2007. The purpose of FIN 48 is to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock options granted subsequent to the date of adoption. The Lockheed Martin Amendedclarify and Restated 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan providesset forth consistent rules for the grant of various types of stock-based incentive awards, including options to purchase common stock, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock and stock units. The types and mix of stock-based incentive awards are evaluated on an ongoing basis and may vary based on management’s overall strategy regarding compensation, including consideration of the impact of the expensing of stock option awards on our results of operations subsequent to the adoption of FAS 123(R). Based on current analyses and information, we expect that the combination of expensing stock options upon adoption of FAS 123(R) in 2006 and grants of restricted stock units will result in additional expense, net of stateaccounting for uncertain income tax benefits, totaling approximately $100 million (or a reductionpositions in net earnings per share of $0.15) on a full year basis.

We also adopted FASB Interpretation No. (FIN) 47,accordance with FAS 109,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations – an interpretationIncome Taxes. The cumulative effect of FASB Statement No. 143, in the fourth quarter of 2005. FIN 47 clarifies the term “conditional asset retirement obligation” as used in FAS 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, and requires that a liability and a corresponding increase in the value of the underlying asset be recorded, and depreciation on the increased asset value be expensed, if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. The types of asset retirement obligations that are covered by FIN 47 are those for which an entity has a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity, even though the timing and/or method of settling the obligation are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. An example of a condition giving rise to an asset retirement obligation is the presence of embedded asbestos, radiation sources or other regulated materials in buildings or equipment. FIN 47 also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. The adoption of FIN 47 did not have a significant impact on our financial position or results of operations. This is primarily due to the fact that the fair values of the majority of our asset retirement obligations could not be reasonably estimated because they had indeterminate settlement dates, since the range of time over which we may settle the obligations is unknown and could not be estimated. Consistent withapplying the provisions of FIN 47, each obligation willthis interpretation, which is required to be recorded at the time the settlement date is no longer indeterminate and the obligation can be reasonably estimated.

In May 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) 106-2,Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Relatedreported separately as a noncash adjustment to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Actopening balance of 2003. This FSP provides specific authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidyour retained earnings in 2007, is currently not expected to eligible sponsors of retiree health care benefits provided under this law. Using this guidance, we estimated a projected reduction in our accumulated postretirement benefit obligation as of December 31, 2004 of $295 million from the effects of the new law. This obligation will be recognized over the remaining service lives of the employees eligible for the benefit. In January 2005, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services released regulations governing the application of the law and continued to provide clarifying guidance during 2005. Based on this guidance, the impact of adoption of the FSP was a reduction of the FAS 106 postretirement expense for the year ended December 31, 2005 of approximately $35 million. The postretirement expense computed under FAS 106 does not include the effects of U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards or income tax benefits. The adoption of the FSP did not have a material impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2005.flows.

Controls and Procedures

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures, including internal control over financial reporting, that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our periodic filings with the SEC is reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and transactions are properly executed and recorded. Our disclosure controls and procedures are also designed to ensure that information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO), as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating such controls and procedures, we recognize that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily is required to use its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Also, we have investments in certain unconsolidated entities. As we do not control or manage these entities, our controls and procedures with respect to those entities are necessarily substantially more limited than those we maintain with respect to our consolidated subsidiaries.

We routinely review our system of internal control over financial reporting and make changes to our processes and systems to improve controls and increase efficiency, while ensuring that we maintain an effective internal control environment. Changes may include such activities as implementing new, more efficient systems, consolidating the activities of two or more business units, and migrating certain processes to our Shared Services centers. In addition, when we acquire new businesses, we review the controls and procedures of the acquired business as part of our integration activities.

We performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, including internal control over financial reporting, as of December 31, 2005.2006. The evaluation was performed with the participation of senior management of each business segment and key Corporate functions, and under the supervision of the CEO and CFO. Based on our evaluation, we concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2005.2006.

During 2005,2006, we also performed a separate evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including performing self-assessment and monitoring procedures. Based on those activities and other evaluation procedures, our management, including the CEO and CFO, concluded that internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2005.2006. Management’s report on our financial statements and internal control over financial reporting appears on page 76.56. In addition, both our assessment and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting were audited by our independent registered public accounting firm. Their report appears on page 77.57.

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the most recently completed fiscal quarter that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 7A.QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the caption “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure of Market Risk” on page 72,54, and under the caption “Derivative financial instruments” in Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies on page 8865 of this Form 10-K.

ITEM 8.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Management’s Report on the Financial Statements and

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

The management of Lockheed Martin is responsible for the consolidated financial statements and all related financial information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The consolidated financial statements, which include amounts based on estimates and judgments, have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Management believes the consolidated financial statements fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Corporation. The consolidated financial statements have been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report included herein.

The management of Lockheed Martin is also responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting of the Corporation (as defined by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). This system is designed to provide reasonable assurance, based on an appropriate cost-benefit relationship, that assets are safeguarded and transactions are properly executed and recorded. An environment that provides for an appropriate level of control consciousness is maintained through a comprehensive program of management testing to identify and correct deficiencies, examinations by internal auditors, and audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency for compliance with federal government rules and regulations applicable to contracts with the U.S. Government.

Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Corporation’s system of internal control over financial reporting based on the framework inInternal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that the Corporation’s system of internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2005.2006. Management’s assessment has been audited by Ernst & Young LLP, as stated in their report included herein.

Essential to the Corporation’s internal control system is management’s dedication to the highest standards of integrity, ethics and social responsibility. To support these standards, management has issued the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (the Code). The Code provides for a help line that employees can use to confidentially or anonymously communicate to the Corporation’s ethics office complaints or concerns about accounting, internal control or auditing matters. These matters are forwarded directly to the Audit Committee of the Corporation’s Board of Directors.

The Audit Committee, which is composed of five directors who are not members of management, has oversight responsibility for the Corporation’s financial reporting process and the audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. Both the independent auditors and the internal auditors meet periodically with members of the Audit Committee, with or without management representatives present. The Audit Committee recommended, and the Board of Directors approved, that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

/s/ Robert J. Stevens

 

/s/ Christopher E. Kubasik

ROBERT J. STEVENS

Chairman, President and Chief

Executive Officer

 

CHRISTOPHER E. KUBASIK

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Executive Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer

Report of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public

Accounting Firm, Regarding Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Lockheed Martin Corporation

We have audited management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on the Financial Statements and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, that Lockheed Martin Corporation maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on criteria established inInternal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Lockheed Martin Corporation’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management’s assessment that Lockheed Martin Corporation maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the COSO criteria. Also, in our opinion, Lockheed Martin Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on the COSO criteria.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Lockheed Martin Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 20052006 of Lockheed Martin Corporation and our report dated February 22, 200621, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Baltimore, Maryland

February 22, 200621, 2007

Report of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public

Accounting Firm, on the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Lockheed Martin Corporation

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Lockheed Martin Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005.2006. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Lockheed Martin Corporation and subsidiaries at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, and the consolidated results of theirits operations and theirits cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005,2006, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

As discussed in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, in 2006 the Corporation adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-Based Payments.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,2006, based on criteria established inInternal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 22, 200621, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Baltimore, Maryland

February 22, 200621, 2007

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statement of Earnings

 

  Year ended December 31,  Year ended December 31,

(In millions, except per share data)

  2005  2004  2003  2006    2005    2004

Net sales

                

Products

  $31,518  $30,202  $27,290  $33,863    $31,518    $30,202

Services

   5,695   5,324   4,534   5,757     5,695     5,324
            39,620     37,213     35,526
   37,213   35,526   31,824
         

Cost of sales

                

Products

   28,800   27,879   25,306   30,572     28,800     27,879

Services

   5,073   4,765   4,099   5,118     5,073     4,765

Unallocated Corporate costs

   803   914   443   496     803     914
            36,186     34,676     33,558
   34,676   33,558   29,848   3,434     2,537     1,968
         
   2,537   1,968   1,976

Other income and expenses, net

   449   121   43   519     449     121
         

Operating profit

   2,986   2,089   2,019   3,953     2,986     2,089

Interest expense

   370   425   487   361     370     425
         

Earnings before taxes

   2,616   1,664   1,532   3,592     2,616     1,664

Income tax expense

   791   398   479   1,063     791     398
         

Net earnings

  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053  $2,529    $1,825    $1,266
         

Earnings per common share:

      

Earnings per common share

          

Basic

  $4.15  $2.86  $2.36  $5.91    $4.15    $2.86
         

Diluted

  $4.10  $2.83  $2.34  $5.80    $4.10    $2.83
         

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Balance Sheet

 

  December 31,   December 31, 

(In millions)

  2005 2004   2006     2005 

Assets

         

Current assets

         

Cash and cash equivalents

  $2,244  $1,060   $1,912     $2,244 

Short-term investments

   429   396    381      429 

Receivables

   4,579   4,094    4,595      4,579 

Inventories

   1,921   1,864    1,657      1,921 

Deferred income taxes

   861   982    900      861 

Other current assets

   495   557    719      495 
       

Total current assets

   10,529   8,953    10,164      10,529 

Property, plant and equipment, net

   3,924   3,599    4,056      3,924 

Investments in equity securities

   196   812 

Goodwill

   8,447   7,892    9,250      8,447 

Purchased intangibles, net

   560   672    605      560 

Prepaid pension asset

   1,360   1,030    235      1,360 

Deferred income taxes

   1,487      555 

Other assets

   2,728   2,596    2,434      2,369 
       
  $27,744  $25,554 
         $28,231     $27,744 

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity

         

Current liabilities

         

Accounts payable

  $1,998  $1,726   $2,221     $1,998 

Customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred

   4,331   4,028    3,856      4,331 

Salaries, benefits and payroll taxes

   1,475   1,346    1,584      1,475 

Current maturities of long-term debt

   202   15    34      202 

Other current liabilities

   1,422   1,451    1,858      1,422 
       

Total current liabilities

   9,428   8,566    9,553      9,428 

Long-term debt

   4,784   5,104 

Long-term debt, net

   4,405      4,784 

Accrued pension liabilities

   2,097   1,660    3,025      2,097 

Other postretirement benefit liabilities

   1,277   1,236    1,496      1,277 

Other liabilities

   2,291   1,967    2,868      2,291 

Stockholders’ equity

         

Common stock, $1 par value per share

   432   438    421      432 

Additional paid-in capital

   1,724   2,223    755      1,724 

Retained earnings

   7,278   5,915    9,269      7,278 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

   (1,553)  (1,532)   (3,561)     (1,553)

Other

   (14)  (23)         (14)
       

Total stockholders’ equity

   7,867   7,021    6,884      7,867 
         $28,231     $27,744 
  $27,744  $25,554 
       

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

 

  Year ended December 31,   Year ended December 31, 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003   2006   2005   2004 

Operating Activities

          

Net earnings

  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053   $2,529   $1,825   $1,266 

Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash provided by operating activities:

    

Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash provided by operating activities

      

Depreciation and amortization

   555   511   480    600    555    511 

Amortization of purchased intangibles

   150   145   129    164    150    145 

Deferred federal income taxes

   24   (58)  467 

Deferred income taxes

   75    24    (58)

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:

          

Receivables

   (390)  (87)  (258)   94    (390)   (87)

Inventories

   (39)  519   (94)   (530)   (39)   519 

Accounts payable

   239   288   330    217    239    288 

Customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred

   296   (228)  (285)   475    296    (228)

Other

   534   568   (13)   159    534    568 
          

Net cash provided by operating activities

   3,194   2,924   1,809    3,783    3,194    2,924 
          

Investing Activities

          

Expenditures for property, plant and equipment

   (865)  (769)  (687)   (893)   (865)   (769)

Acquisition of businesses / investments in affiliated companies

   (564)  (91)  (821)

Proceeds from divestiture of businesses / investments in affiliated companies

   935   279   234 

Purchase of short-term investments, net

   (33)  (156)  (240)

Acquisition of businesses / investments in affiliates

   (1,122)   (564)   (91)

Divestitures of businesses / investments in affiliates

   180    935    279 

Sale (purchase) of short-term investments, net

   48    (33)   (156)

Other

   28   29   53    132    28    29 
          

Net cash used for investing activities

   (499)  (708)  (1,461)   (1,655)   (499)   (708)
          

Financing Activities

          

Repayments of long-term debt

   (133)  (1,089)  (2,202)

Issuances of long-term debt

   —     —     1,000 

Long-term debt repayment and issuance costs

   (12)  (163)  (175)

Issuances of common stock

   406   164   44 

Issuances of common stock and related amounts

   756    406    164 

Repurchases of common stock

   (1,310)  (673)  (482)   (2,115)   (1,310)   (673)

Common stock dividends

   (462)  (405)  (261)   (538)   (462)   (405)
          

Premium and transaction costs for debt exchange

   (353)        

Repayments of long-term debt

   (210)   (133)   (1,089)

Long-term debt repayment costs

       (12)   (163)

Net cash used for financing activities

   (1,511)  (2,166)  (2,076)   (2,460)   (1,511)   (2,166)
          

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

   1,184   50   (1,728)

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

   (332)   1,184    50 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year

   1,060   1,010   2,738    2,244    1,060    1,010 
          

Cash and cash equivalents at end of year

  $2,244  $1,060  $1,010   $1,912   $2,244   $1,060 
          

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Equity

 

(In millions, except per share data)

  Common
Stock
 Additional
Paid-In
Capital
 Retained
Earnings
 

Accumulated
Other

Comprehensive

(Loss) Income

 Other Total
Stockholders’
Equity
     

Compre-

hensive

Income
(Loss)

  Common
Stock
 Additional
Paid-In
Capital
 Retained
Earnings
 

Accumulated
Other

Comprehensive

(Loss) Income

 Other Total
Stockholders’
Equity
 

Compre-

hensive

Income
(Loss)

 

Balance at December 31, 2002

  $455  $2,796  $4,262  $(1,598) $(50) $5,865     
                       
 

Net earnings

   —     —     1,053   —     —     1,053     $1,053 

Common stock dividends declared
($0.58 per share)

   —     —     (261)  —     —     (261)     —   

Repurchases of common stock

   (11)  (471)  —     —     —     (482)     —   

Stock-based awards and ESOP activity

   2   152   —     —     33   187      —   

Other comprehensive income (loss):

           

Minimum pension liability

   —     —     —     331   —     331      331 

Net unrealized gain from

available-for-sale investments

   —     —     —     46   —     46      46 

Other

   —     —     —     17   —     17      17 
                         

Balance at December 31, 2003

   446   2,477   5,054   (1,204)  (17)  6,756     $1,447  $446  $2,477  $5,054  $(1,204) $(17) $6,756  
                         
    

Net earnings

   —     —     1,266   —     —     1,266     $1,266         1,266         1,266  $1,266 

Common stock dividends declared
($0.91 per share)

   —     —     (405)  —     —     (405)     —           (405)        (405)   

Repurchases of common stock

   (15)  (757)  —     —     —     (772)     —     (15)  (757)           (772)   

Stock-based awards and ESOP activity

   7   503   —     —     (6)  504      —     7   503         (6)  504    

Other comprehensive income (loss):

                  

Minimum pension liability

   —     —     —     (285)  —     (285)     (285)           (285)     (285)  (285)

Reclassification adjustments related to available-for-sale investments

   —     —     —     (56)  —     (56)     (56)           (56)     (56)  (56)

Other

   —     —     —     13   —     13      13            13      13   13 
                         

Balance at December 31, 2004

   438   2,223   5,915   (1,532)  (23)  7,021     $938   438   2,223   5,915   (1,532)  (23)  7,021  $938 
                         
      

Net earnings

   —     —     1,825   —     —     1,825     $1,825         1,825         1,825  $1,825 

Common stock dividends declared
($1.05 per share)

   —     —     (462)  —     —     (462)     —           (462)        (462)   

Repurchases of common stock

   (20)  (1,202)  —     —     —     (1,222)     —     (20)  (1,202)           (1,222)   

Stock-based awards and ESOP activity

   14   703   —     —     9   726      —     14   703         9   726    

Other comprehensive income (loss):

                  

Minimum pension liability

   —     —     —     (105)  —     (105)     (105)           (105)     (105)  (105)

Net unrealized gain from

available-for-sale investments

   —     —     —     97   —     97      97            97      97   97 

Other

                  (13)       (13)     (13)           (13)     (13)  (13)
                         

Balance at December 31, 2005

  $432  $1,724  $7,278  $(1,553) $(14) $7,867     $1,804   432   1,724   7,278   (1,553)  (14)  7,867  $1,804 
                              

Net earnings

        2,529         2,529  $2,529 

Common stock dividends declared
($1.25 per share)

        (538)        (538)   

Repurchases of common stock

  (28)  (2,076)           (2,104)   

Stock-based awards and ESOP
activity

  17   1,107         14   1,138    

Other comprehensive income (loss):

       

Minimum pension liability

           1,186      1,186   1,186 

Reclassification adjustment related to available-for-sale investments

           (92)     (92)  (92)

Other

           (33)     (33)  (33)

Adjustment for adoption of FAS 158

           (3,069)     (3,069)   

Balance at December 31, 2006

 $421  $755  $9,269  $(3,561) $  $6,884  $3,590 

See accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 20052006

Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies

Organization – Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin or the Corporation) is engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, operation and sustainment of advanced technology systems and products, and provide a broad range of management, engineering, technical, scientific, logistic and information services. As a leading systems integrator, itsour products and services range from electronics and information systems, including integrated net-centric solutions, to missiles, aircraft spacecraft and launch services. The Corporation servesspacecraft. We serve customers in both domestic and international defense and commercial businesses, with itsour principal customers being agencies of the U.S. Government.

Basis of consolidation and classificationsTheOur consolidated financial statements include the accounts of wholly-owned subsidiaries and other entities which the Corporation controls. Intercompanywe control. We eliminate intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. ReceivablesOur receivables, inventories and inventoriescustomer advances are primarily attributable to long-term contracts or programs in progress for which the related operating cycles are longer than one year. In accordance with industry practice, we include these items are included in current assets.

CertainWe have reclassified certain amounts for prior years have been reclassified to conform with the 20052006 presentation.

Use of estimates –The preparation ofWe prepare our consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP) requires management. In doing so, we are required to make estimates and assumptions, including estimates of anticipated contract costs and revenues utilized in the earnings recognition process, that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Due to the size and nature of many of the Corporation’sour programs, the estimation of total revenues and cost at completion is subject to a wide range of variables, including assumptions for schedule and technical issues. ActualOur actual results may differ from those estimates.

Cash and cash equivalents – Cash equivalents are generally composed ofinclude highly liquid instruments with original maturities of 90 days or less. Due to the short maturity of these instruments, the carrying value on the Corporation’sour consolidated balance sheet approximates fair value.

Short-term investmentsThe Corporation’sOur short-term investments consist ofinclude marketable securities that are categorized as available-for-sale securities as defined by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 115,Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities. RealizedWe record realized gains and losses are recorded in other income and expenses. For purposes of computing realized gains and losses, we determine cost is determined on a specific identification basis. The fair values of our marketable securities are estimated based on quoted market prices for the respective securities.

The Corporation recordsWe record short-term investments at fair value. At year end, theour investment portfolio was composed ofincluded the following:

 

  Year ended December 31,  December 31,
  2005  2004  2006  2005

(In millions)

  

Amortized

Cost

  

Fair

Value

  

Amortized

Cost

  

Fair

Value

  

Amortized

Cost

  

Fair

Value

  

Amortized

Cost

  

Fair

Value

U.S. treasury and government agency securities

  $125  $124  $252  $251

Corporate debt securities

   145   144   117   117  $139  $139  $145  $144

Mortgage-backed and other securities

   161   161   28   28

Government-sponsored enterprise securities

   89   88   106   105

U.S. Treasury and other securities

   154   154   180   180
              $382  $381  $431  $429
  $431  $429  $397  $396
            

Approximately 60%68% of the securities in our portfolio had contractual maturities of one year or less. An additional 36%30% of the securities had contractual maturities of one to five years, with the remainder greater than five years. MarketableProceeds from sales of marketable securities sales proceeds totaled $167 million in 2006 and $461 million in 2005 and $384 million in 2004.2005. Gross gains and losses related to sales of marketable securities for both years, as well as net unrealized gains and losses at each year end, were not material.

Receivables – Receivables consist ofinclude amounts billed and currently due from customers, and unbilled costs and accrued profits primarily related to revenues on long-term contracts that have been recognized for accounting purposes but not yet billed to customers. As suchwe recognize those revenues, are recognized,we reflect appropriate amounts of customer advances, performance-based payments and progress payments are reflected as an offset to the related receivables balance.

InventoriesInventories are statedWe record inventories at the lower of cost or estimated net realizable value. Costs on long-term contracts and programs in progress represent recoverable costs incurred for production or contract-specific facilities and equipment, allocable operating overhead, advances to suppliers and, in the case of contracts with the U.S. Government, research and development and general and administrative expenses. Pursuant to contract provisions, agencies of the U.S. Government and certain other customers have title to, or a security interest in, inventories related to such contracts as a result of advances, performance-based payments and progress payments. SuchWe reflect those advances and payments are reflected as an offset against the related inventory balances. GeneralWe expense general and administrative expenses related to commercial products and services provided essentially under commercial terms and conditions are expensed as incurred. CostsWe usually determine the costs of other product and supply inventories are principally determined by the first-in first-out or average cost methods.

Property, plant and equipmentProperty,We include property, plant and equipment are carriedon our balance sheet principally at cost. Depreciation is providedWe provide for depreciation and amortization on plant and equipment generally using accelerated methods during the first half of the estimated useful lives of the assets; thereafter,assets, and the straight-line depreciation is used. Estimatedmethod thereafter. The estimated useful lives of our plant and equipment generally range from 10 to 40 years for buildings and five to 15 years for machinery and equipment.

Goodwill – We evaluate goodwill for potential impairment on an annual basis by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit, based on estimated future cash flows, to its carrying value including goodwill recorded by the reporting unit. If the carrying value exceeds the fair value, we measure impairment by comparing the derived fair value of goodwill to its carrying value, and any impairment determined is recorded in the current period.

Purchased intangibles, net – We amortize intangible assets acquired as part of business combinations over their estimated useful lives unless their useful lives are determined to be indefinite. For certain business combinations, the amounts we record related to purchased intangibles are determined from independent valuations. Our purchased intangibles primarily relate to contracts and programs acquired and customer relationships which are amortized over periods of 15 years or less, and trade names which have indefinite lives. We included purchased intangibles on our consolidated balance sheet net of accumulated amortization of $1,952 million and $1,788 million at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Less than 10% of the unamortized balance of purchased intangibles at December 31, 2006 is composed of intangibles with indefinite lives. Amortization expense related to these intangible assets was $164 million, $150 million, and $145 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and we estimate amortization expense to be $151 million in 2007, $112 million in 2008, $94 million in 2009 and $89 million in 2010 and $80 million in 2011.

Customer advances and amounts in excess of cost incurred – We receive advances, performance-based payments and progress payments from customers that may exceed costs incurred on certain contracts, including contracts with agencies of the U.S. Government. We classify such advances, other than those reflected as a reduction of accounts receivable or inventories as discussed above, as current liabilities.

Environmental matters – We record a liability for environmental matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. In cases where a date to complete activities at a particular environmental site cannot be estimated by reference to agreements or otherwise, we project costs over a reasonable time frame not to exceed 20 years. We do not discount liabilities unless the amount and timing of future cash payments are fixed or reliably determinable. We expect to include a substantial portion of environmental costs in sales and cost of sales pursuant to U.S. Government agreement or regulation. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record an asset for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government. We include the portion of those costs expected to be allocated to commercial business or that is determined to be unallowable for pricing under U.S. Government contracts in cost of sales at the time the liability is established.

Sales and earnings – We record sales and anticipated profits under long-term fixed-price design, development and production contracts on a percentage of completion basis, generally using units-of-delivery as the basis to measure progress toward completing the contract and recognizing revenue. We include estimated contract profits in earnings in proportion to recorded sales. We record sales under certain long-term fixed-price development and production contracts which, among other factors, provide for the delivery of minimal quantities or require a substantial level of development effort in relation to total contract value, upon achievement of performance milestones or using the cost-to-cost method of accounting where sales and profits are recorded based on the ratio of costs we incur to our estimate of total costs at completion. We record sales under development and production cost-reimbursement-type contracts as costs are incurred. We include applicable estimated profits in earnings in the proportion that incurred costs bear to total estimated costs. We record sales of products and services provided under essentially commercial terms and conditions upon delivery and passage of title.

We consider incentives or penalties related to performance on design, development and production contracts in estimating sales and profit rates, and record them when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated contract

performance. We also consider estimates of award fees in estimating sales and profit rates based on actual awards and anticipated performance. We generally do not recognize incentive provisions which increase or decrease earnings based solely on a single significant event until the event occurs. We only include amounts representing contract change orders, claims or other items in sales when they can be reliably estimated and realization is probable.

We record revenue under contracts for services other than those associated with design, development or production activities either as services are performed or when a contractually required event has occurred, depending on the contract. This methodology is primarily used by our Information Technology & Global Services (IT&GS) segment (formerly our Information & Technology Services segment). We generally record revenue under such services contracts on a straight-line basis over the period of contract performance, unless evidence suggests that the revenue is earned or the obligations are fulfilled in a different pattern. Costs we incur under these service contracts are expensed as incurred, except that we capitalize and recognize initial “set-up” costs over the life of the agreement.Incentives and award fees related to our performance on services contracts are recognized when they are fixed and determinable, generally at the date of award.

Research and development and similar costs – Costs for research and development we sponsor primarily include independent research and development and bid and proposal efforts related to government products and services. Except for certain arrangements described below, we generally include these costs as part of the general and administrative costs that are allocated among all of our contracts and programs in progress under U.S. Government contractual arrangements. Costs for product development initiatives we sponsor that are not otherwise allocable are charged to expense when incurred. Under some arrangements in which a customer shares in product development costs, our portion of unreimbursed costs is generally expensed as incurred. Total independent research and development costs charged to cost of sales in 2006, 2005 and 2004, including costs related to bid and proposal efforts, totaled $1,139 million in 2006, $1,042 million in 2005 and $984 million in 2004. Costs we incur under customer-sponsored research and development programs pursuant to contracts are accounted for as sales and cost of sales under the contract.

Restructuring activities – Under existing U.S. Government regulations, certain costs we incur for consolidation or restructuring activities that we can demonstrate will result in savings in excess of the cost to implement those actions can be deferred and amortized for government contracting purposes and included as allowable costs in future pricing of our products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government. Assets recorded at December 31, 2006 and 2005 for deferred costs related to various consolidation actions were not material.

Impairment of certain long-lived assets – Generally, we review the carrying values of long-lived assets other than goodwill for impairment if events or changes in the facts and circumstances indicate that their carrying values may not be recoverable. We measure impairment by comparing the fair value based on estimated future cash flows of the related asset to its carrying value. If an asset is determined to be impaired, we recognize an impairment charge in the current period.

Investments in equity securities – Investments in equity securities include the Corporation’sour ownership interests in affiliated companies that it doeswe do not control, which are

accountedincluding those where our investment represents less than a 20% ownership. When we have investments that represent a 20% to 50% ownership interest, we generally account for them under the equity method of accounting. Under this method of accounting, which generally applies to investments that represent a 20% to 50% ownership of the equity securities of the investees, the Corporation’sour share of the net earnings or losses of the affiliated companies is included in other income and expenses. The Corporation recognizes currentlyWe recognize gains or losses arising from issuances of stock by wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiaries, or by equity method investees.investees, in the current period. These gains or losses are also included in other income and expenses.

Investments in equity securities also include the Corporation’s ownership interests in companies in which its investment represents For those investments that represent less than a 20% ownership. Ifownership interest, if classified as available-for-sale under FAS 115, thesethe investments are accounted for at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses reflected as a net after-tax amount under the caption ofin accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the statement of stockholders’ equity. If declines in the value of investments accounted for under either the equity method or FAS 115 are determined to be other than temporary, a loss is recorded in earnings in the current period. The Corporation makesWe make such determinations by considering, among other factors, the length of time the fair value of the investment has been less than the carrying value, future business prospects for the investee, and information regarding market and industry trends for the investee’s business, and investment analyst reports, if available. Investments not accounted for under one of these methods are generally accounted for under the cost method of accounting.

Goodwill – Goodwill is evaluated for potential impairment annually by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit, based on estimated future cash flows, to its carrying value including goodwill recorded by the reporting unit. If the carrying value exceeds the fair value, impairment is measured by comparing the derived fair value of goodwill to its carrying value, and any impairment determined is recorded in the current period.

Purchased intangibles, net – Intangible assets acquired as part of business combinations are amortized over their estimated useful lives unless their useful lives are determined to be indefinite. For material business combinations, amounts recorded related to purchased intangibles are determined from independent valuations. The Corporation’s purchased intangibles primarily relate to contracts and programs and customer relationships which are amortized over periods of 15 years or less. Purchased intangibles are displayed in the consolidated balance sheet net of accumulated amortization of $1,788 million and $1,638 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Amortization expense related to these intangible assets was $150 million, $145 million and $129 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and is estimated to be $153 million in 2006, $125 million in 2007, $87 million in 2008, $68 million in 2009 and $63 million in 2010.

Customer advances and amounts in excess of cost incurred – The Corporation receives advances, performance-based payments and progress payments from customers which may exceed costs incurred on certain contracts, including contracts with agencies of the U.S. Government. Such advances, other than those reflected as a reduction of accounts receivable or inventories as discussed above, are classified as current liabilities.

Environmental matters – The Corporation records a liability for environmental matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

In cases where a date to complete activities at a particular environmental site cannot be estimated by reference to agreements or otherwise, we project costs over a reasonable time frame not to exceed 20 years. Liabilities are not discounted unless the amount and timing of future cash payments are fixed or reliably determinable. A substantial portion of environmental costs are expected to be reflected in sales and cost of sales pursuant to U.S. Government agreement or regulation. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, an asset is recorded for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government. The portion of those costs expected to be allocated to commercial business or that is determined to be unallowable for pricing under U.S. Government contracts is reflected in cost of sales at the time the liability is established.

Sales and earnings – Sales and anticipated profits under long-term fixed-price design, development and production contracts are recorded on a percentage of completion basis, generally using units-of-delivery as the basis to measure progress toward completing the contract and recognizing revenue. Estimated contract profits are taken into earnings in proportion to recorded sales. Sales under certain long-term fixed-price development and production contracts which, among other factors, provide for the delivery of minimal quantities or require a substantial level of development effort in relation to total contract value, are recorded upon achievement of performance milestones or using the cost-to-cost method of accounting where sales and profits are recorded based on the ratio of costs incurred to estimated total costs at completion. Sales under development and production cost-reimbursement-type contracts are recorded as costs are incurred. Applicable estimated profits are included in earnings in the proportion that incurred costs bear to total estimated costs. Sales of products and services provided essentially under commercial terms and conditions are recorded upon delivery and passage of title.

Incentives or penalties related to performance on design, development and production contracts are considered in estimating sales and profit rates, and are recorded when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated contract performance. Estimates of award fees are also considered in estimating sales and profit rates based on actual awards and anticipated performance. Incentive provisions which increase or decrease earnings based solely on a single significant event are generally not recognized until the event occurs. Amounts representing contract change orders, claims or other items are included in sales only when they can be reliably estimated and realization is probable.

Revenue under contracts for services other than those associated with design, development or production activities is generally recognized either as services are performed or when earned, depending on the contract. This methodology is primarily used by the Information & Technology Services segment. Revenue under such contracts is generally recognized on a straight-line basis over the period of contract performance, unless evidence suggests that the revenue is earned or the obligations are fulfilled in a different pattern. Costs incurred under these service contracts are expensed as incurred, except that initial “set-up” costs are capitalized and recognized over the life of the agreement.Incentives and award fees related to performance on services contracts are recognized when they are fixed and determinable, generally at the date of award.

Research and development and similar costs – Corporation-sponsored research and development costs primarily include independent research and development and bid and proposal efforts related to government products and services. Except for certain arrangements described below, these costs are generally included as part of the general and administrative costs that are allocated among all contracts and programs in progress under U.S. Government contractual arrangements. Corporation-sponsored product development costs not otherwise allocable are charged to expense when incurred. Under certain arrangements in which a customer shares in product development costs, the Corporation’s portion of unreimbursed costs is generally expensed as incurred. Total independent research and development costs charged to cost of sales in 2005, 2004 and 2003, including costs related to bid and proposal efforts, totaled $1,042 million in 2005, $984 million in 2004 and $1,030 million in 2003. Costs incurred under customer-sponsored research and development programs pursuant to contracts are accounted for as sales and cost of sales under the contract.

Restructuring activities – Under existing U.S. Government regulations, certain costs incurred for consolidation or restructuring activities that can be demonstrated to result in savings in excess of the cost to implement those actions can be deferred and amortized for government contracting purposes and included as allowable costs in future pricing of the Corporation’s products and services. Included in other assets in the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2005 and 2004 is $65 million and $95 million, respectively, of deferred costs related to various consolidation actions.

Impairment of certain long-lived assets – Generally, the carrying values of long-lived assets other than goodwill are reviewed for impairment if events or changes in the facts and circumstances indicate that their carrying values may not be recoverable. Any impairment determined is recorded in the current period and is measured by comparing the fair value based on estimated future cash flows of the related asset to its carrying value.

Derivative financial instrumentsThe CorporationWe sometimes usesuse derivative financial instruments to manage itsour exposure to fluctuations in interest rates and foreign exchange rates and interest rates. The Corporation doesWe do not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes. Derivatives are recordedWe record derivatives at their fair value as either other current assets or liabilities inon the consolidated balance sheet, and periodically adjusted to fair value.sheet. The classification of gains and losses resulting from changes in the fair values of derivatives is dependent on theour intended use of the derivative and its resulting designation. AdjustmentsWe include adjustments to reflect changes in fair values of derivatives that are not considered highly effective hedges are reflected in earnings. Adjustments to reflect changes in fair values of derivatives that are consideredwe consider highly effective hedges are either reflected in earnings and largely offset by

corresponding adjustments related to the fair values of the hedged items, or reflected net of income taxes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) until the hedged transaction occurs and the entire transaction is recognized in earnings. The changeWe immediately recognize changes in fair value of the ineffective portion of a hedge is immediately recognized in earnings.

InterestWe designate interest rate swap agreements are designated as effective hedges of the fair value of certain existingdebt instruments to which they relate in cases where we swap fixed rate debt instruments. Forwardrates for variable rates, and as effective hedges of the cash flows of forecasted variable interest payments in cases where we swap variable rates for fixed rates. Our forward currency exchange contracts generally qualify as hedges of the fluctuations in cash flows associated with firm commitments or specific anticipated

transactions contracted in foreign currencies, or as hedges of the exposure to rate changes affecting foreign currency denominated assets or liabilities. At December 31, 2005, there were no2006, the fair value of our outstanding interest rate swap agreements outstanding,agreement was not material, and the fair value of forward currency exchange contracts outstanding, as well as the related amounts of gains and losses recorded during the year, were not material.

Stock-based compensation –The Corporation measures Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted FAS 123(R),Share-Based Payments, and the related SEC rules included in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, on a modified prospective basis (see Note 11). Under this method, we recognize compensation cost beginning January 1, 2006 for costs related to 1) all share-based payments (stock options and restricted stock awards) granted before but not yet vested as of January 1, 2006 based on the grant-date fair value estimated under the original provisions of FAS 123,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, and 2) all share-based payments (stock options and restricted stock units) granted after December 31, 2005 based on the grant-date fair value estimated under the provisions of FAS 123(R).

To account for the tax effects of stock based compensation, FAS 123(R) requires a calculation to establish the beginning pool of excess tax benefits, or the additional paid-in capital (APIC) pool, available to absorb any tax deficiencies recognized after its adoption. Tax deficiencies arise when the actual tax benefit for the tax deduction for share-based compensation at the statutory tax rate is less than the related deferred tax asset recognized in the financial statements. We have elected the alternative transition method for calculating the APIC pool as described in FAS 123(R)-3, Transition Election Related to Accounting for the Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards.

Prior to January 1, 2006, we measured compensation cost for stock-based compensation plans using the intrinsic value method of accounting as prescribed inunder Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25,Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related interpretations. The Corporation has adopted those provisions of FAS 123,Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, which require disclosure ofinterpretations, but disclosed the pro forma effects on net earnings and earnings per share as if compensation cost had been recognized based uponon the fair value-based method at the date of grant for stock options awarded. The fair value information included inawarded consistent with the table below was estimated at the dateprovisions of grant of the options using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.

Upon retirement, the Corporation’s stock option award agreements allow employees to retain all stock option awards held through the initial vesting date prior to retirement, and to continue vesting in the award as if their employment had continued. Effective January 2005, the Corporation recognizes fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense for active, retirement-eligible employees over the one-year initial vesting period, and for active, non-retirement-eligible employees, over the original three-year vesting periods of the award. Prior to 2005, the Corporation recognized fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense over the original vesting periods of each award for all employees, including those eligible to retire.

The pro forma disclosures for the year ended December 31, 2005 set forth below include $33 million ($0.08 per share) as an inception-to-date adjustment of fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense recognized in the first quarter of 2005 related to retirement eligible employees with outstanding and unvested 2004 and 2003 stock option awards, to reflect the service period as one year rather than the original vesting period.

The Corporation’s reportedFAS 123. Reported and pro forma earnings per share information follows:

(In millions, except per share data)

  2005  2004  2003 

Net earnings

    

As reported

  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053 

Fair value-based compensation cost, net of taxes

    

Fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense

   (56)  (48)  (61)

Inception-to-date adjustment

   (33)  —     —   
             

Pro forma net earnings

  $1,736  $1,218  $992 
             

Earnings per basic share

    

As reported

  $4.15  $2.86  $2.36 

Fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense

   (0.12)  (0.11)  (0.14)

Inception-to-date adjustment

   (0.08)  —     —   
             

Pro forma

  $3.95  $2.75  $2.22 
             

Earnings per diluted share

    

As reported

  $4.10  $2.83  $2.34 

Fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense

   (0.12)  (0.11)  (0.14)

Inception-to-date adjustment

   (0.08)  —     —   
             

Pro forma

  $3.90  $2.72  $2.20 
             

The fair value for these options was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

   2005  2004  2003 

Risk-free interest rate

  3.70% 3.19% 2.91%

Dividend yield

  1.73% 1.50% 1.00%

Volatility factors related to expected price of Lockheed Martin stock

  0.259  0.365  0.387 

Expected option life

  5 years  5 years  5 years 

The weighted average fair value of each option granted duringyears ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and 2003 was $14.16, $15.76 and $17.78, respectively.

Effective January 1, 2006, the Corporation adopted FAS 123(R),Share-Based Payments, and related Securities and Exchange Commission rulesare included in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, on a modified prospective basis. The standard requires stock options and other share-based payments made to employees to be accounted for as compensation expense and recorded at fair value, and requires the related excess tax benefit received upon exercise of the options, if any, to be reflected in the statement of cash flows as a financing activity rather than an operating activity as currently presented. The Corporation will continue to use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock options granted subsequent to the date of adoption of FAS 123(R).Note 11.

The Lockheed Martin Amended and Restated 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan provides for the grant of various types of stock-based incentive awards, including options to purchase common stock, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock and stock units. The types and mix of stock-based incentive awards are evaluated on an ongoing basis and may vary based on management’s overall strategy regarding compensation, including consideration of the impact of expensing stock option awards on the Corporation’s results of operations subsequent to the adoption of FAS 123(R). Based on current analyses and information, the Corporation expects that the combination of expensing stock options upon adoption of FAS 123(R) in 2006 and grants of restricted stock units will result in additional expense, net of state income tax benefits, totaling approximately $100 million (or a reduction in net earnings per share of $0.15) on a full year basis.

Income taxesThe CorporationWe periodically assesses itsassess our tax filing exposures related to periods that are open to examination. Based on the latest available information, the Corporation reflectswe include in itsour consolidated financial statements itsour best estimate of the tax liability and interest for those exposures where it is probable that an adjustment will be sustained. In 2004, the IRS closed its examination of the Corporation’sour tax returns through December 31, 2002. The IRS commenced its examination of the Corporation’sour 2003 and 2004 Federal tax returns in 2005. The audit is expected to be completed in the first half of 2007.

Comprehensive income – Comprehensive income (loss) for the Corporation consists primarily of net earnings and the after-tax impact of: adjustmentsof the adjustment to the minimum pension liability, adjustmentsliability. The remaining components include a reclassification adjustment related to the sale of an available-for-sale investments,investment and other activities related to hedging activities and foreign currency translation. IncomeWe generally record income taxes related to components of other comprehensive income are generally recorded based on a tax rate, including the effects of federal and state taxes, of 37%36%.

The accumulated balance of $(1,553)$3,561 million of other comprehensive income (loss)loss at December 31, 20052006 included $3,512 million pertaining to our postretirement benefit plans and resulting primarily from the minimum pension liabilityadoption of $(1,629) million, offset primarily by net unrealized gains fromFAS 158,Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R)(see Note 12). The remainder is composed of accumulated balances pertaining to available-for-sale investments.investments and hedging and foreign currency translation activities.

Recent accounting pronouncements – In 2005, the Corporation adoptedJuly 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’sBoard (FASB) Staff Position (FSP) 106-2,issued Interpretation No. (FIN) 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, which is effective January 1, 2007. The purpose of FIN 48 is to clarify and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003set forth consistent rules for accounting for uncertain income tax positions in accordance with FAS 109,Accounting for Income Taxes. The impactcumulative effect of its adoption was a reductionapplying the provisions of the FAS 106 postretirement expensethis interpretation, which is required

to be reported separately as well as a reductionan adjustment to our opening balance of costs determined under U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards for the year ended December 31, 2005. The adoption of FSP 106-2 didretained earnings in 2007, is currently not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation’sour results of operations,operation, financial position or cash flows for the year endedflows.

Effective December 31, 2005.2006, we adopted FAS 158, which requires plan sponsors of defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans to recognize the funded status of their postretirement benefit plans on the balance sheet, measure the fair value of plan assets and benefit obligations as of the balance sheet date and provide additional disclosures. The effect of adopting the statement on our financial condition at December 31, 2006 has been reflected in these financial statements. FAS 158 did not have an effect on prior years. The statement’s provisions regarding the change in the measurement date of postretirement benefit plans are not applicable to us since we already use a measurement date of December 31 for our plans. See Note 13 – Postretirement Benefit Plans12 for additional information regarding the adoption of FSP 106-2.

The Corporation also adopted FASB Interpretation No. (FIN) 47,Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143, in the fourth quarter of 2005. FIN 47 clarifies the term “conditional asset retirement obligation” as used in FAS 143,Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, and requires that a liability and a corresponding increase in the value of the underlying asset be recorded, and depreciation on the

increased asset value be expensed, if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. The types of asset retirement obligations that are covered by FIN 47 are those for which an entity has a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity, even though the timing and/or method of settling the obligation are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. An example of a condition giving rise to an asset retirement obligation is the presence of embedded asbestos, radiation sources or other regulated materials in buildings or equipment. FIN 47 also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. The adoption of FIN 47 did not have a material impact on the Corporation’s results of operations or financial position. This is primarily due to the fact that the fair values of the majority of its asset retirement obligations could not be reasonably estimated because they had indeterminate settlement dates, since the range of time over which it may settle the obligations is unknown and could not be estimated. Consistent with the provisions of FIN 47, each obligation will be recorded at the time the settlement date is no longer indeterminate and the obligation can be reasonably estimated.158.

Note 2 – Acquisitions and Divestitures

Acquisitions

In March2006 and 2005, we completed acquisitions of the following businesses. There were no significant acquisition activities in 2004.

Year ended December 31, 2006 –

Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc., a provider of services to support military readiness, peacekeeping missions, nation-building activities, and disaster relief services (included in our IT&GS segment);

Savi Technology, Inc., a developer of active radio frequency identification solutions (included in our Integrated Systems & Solutions segment);

Aspen Systems Corporation, completed its purchasean information management company that delivers a range of business process and technology solutions (included in our IT&GS segment);

ISX Corporation, a provider of military decision systems and other information technology solutions (included in our Electronic Systems segment); and

HMT Vehicles, a military vehicle design company (included in our Electronic Systems segment).

The SYTEX Group, Inc. (SYTEX).aggregate cash paid for the 2006 acquisitions was $1.0 billion. The total purchase priceamount paid for acquisitions, including amounts paid in 2006 related to acquisitions completed in 2005, was $1.1 billion. Additional payments totaling approximately $106 million are required to be made over the Corporation’s acquisitionnext three years related to these acquisitions, with approximately one-half of SYTEX, including transaction-related costs, was approximately $480 million. Approximately $380 million ofthat amount payable over the purchase price was paid in cash at closing, with most of the remainder payable in 2006. The acquisition wasnext 12 months. We accounted for the acquisitions under the purchase method of accounting. Purchase accounting adjustments were recorded by allocating the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values, andvalues. Purchase accounting adjustments in 2006 included recording combined goodwill of approximately $395$867 million, of which $360approximately $80 million will be amortized for tax purposes.purposes, and $209 million of other intangible assets, primarily relating to the value of contracts we acquired. The acquisition expandsother intangible assets are expected to be amortized over a period of seven years. These acquisitions were not material to our consolidated results of operations for the Corporation’syear ended December 31, 2006.

Year ended December 31, 2005 –

The SYTEX Group, Inc., a provider of information technology solutions and technical support services businesses with the U.S. Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The operations of SYTEX are included(included in the Information & Technology Services business segment.our IT&GS segment);

In 2005, the Corporation completed the acquisitions of STASYS Limited, a U.K.-based technology and consulting firm specializing in network communications and defense interoperability which is included(included in our Integrated Systems & Solutions business segment; IS&S segment);

INSYS Group Limited, a U.K.-based diversified supplier of military communications systems, weapons systems and advanced analysis services which is included(included in our Electronic Systems business segment;segment); and

Coherent Technologies, Inc., a U.S.-based supplier of high-performance, laser-based remote sensing systems which is included(included in ourthe Space Systems business segment. segment).

The aggregate cash paid for the 2005 acquisitions, as well as for amounts paid in 2005 related to acquisitions completed in prior periods, was $564 million. We also accounted for these acquisitions under the purchase method of accounting by allocating the purchase price for these three acquisitions was $180 million.to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values. Purchase accounting adjustments included recording combined goodwill of $164$559 million, none of which will be$360 million is being amortized for tax purposes. These acquisitions were not material to our consolidated results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2005.

Divestitures

During 2006, 2005 and 2004, we completed the following transactions:

Businesses

In November 2003, the CorporationOctober 2006, we sold our ownership interests in Lockheed Khrunichev Energia International, Inc. (LKEI) and Affiliated ComputerILS International Launch Services, Inc. (ACS) completed transactions whereby(ILS). LKEI was a joint venture we had with Russian government-owned space firms which has exclusive rights to market launches of commercial, non-Russian-origin space payloads on the Corporation acquired ACS’ federal government information technology (IT) business,Proton family of rockets. One of the joint venture partners, Khrunichev State Research and ACS concurrently acquiredProduction Space Center (Khrunichev), is the Corporation’smanufacturer of the Proton launch vehicle and provider of the related launch services. ILS was a joint venture between LKEI and us to market Atlas and Proton launch services. We have retained the right to market commercial IT business. The total purchase priceAtlas launch services. In periods prior to the sale of these interests, we consolidated the results of operations of LKEI and ILS into our financial statements based on our controlling financial interest.

Contracts for Proton launch services usually required substantial advances from the customer prior to launch which were included as a liability on our balance sheet in customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred. If a contracted launch service was not provided, the related advance would have to be refunded to the customer by LKEI. In the event LKEI did not refund the advance, we would have been responsible for making the payment to certain customers. Under the sale agreement, we will continue to be responsible to refund advances to certain customers if launch services are not provided and ILS does not refund the advance. Due to this continuing involvement with those customers of ILS, many of the risks related to this business have not been transferred and we did not recognize this transaction as a divestiture for financial reporting purposes. We deferred recognition of a net gain of approximately $60 million that otherwise would have been recognized on the Corporation’s acquisitionsale of ACS’ federal government IT business, including transactions-related costs, was approximately $585 million. The accounting

forour interests in LKEI and ILS, and have continued to include the acquisitionrelated assets and liabilities on our balance sheet. We expect to recognize the deferred net gain upon the expiration of our responsibility to refund the advances, which we generally believe will be in 2008 based on the expected Proton launch schedule. Our ability to realize the deferred net gain is dependent upon Khrunichev providing the contracted launch services or, in the event the launch services are not provided, ILS’s ability to refund the advance. Through December 31, 2006, Proton launch services provided through ILS were provided according to contract terms. Our balance sheet at December 31, 2006 included recording an intangible asset of $57 millioncurrent and noncurrent assets related to a covenant not to compete thatLKEI and ILS totaling $265 million, and current and non current liabilities totaling $335 million, both of which will be amortized over five years, an intangible assetreduced as the launch services are provided. The assets relate primarily to advances we have made to Khrunichev for future launches, and the liabilities relate primarily to advances we have received from customers for future launches.

Land

In the second and third quarters of approximately $552006, we sold certain surplus land in California and Florida for combined proceeds of $76 million related to contracts and customer relationships acquired that will be amortized over seven years, and goodwill of approximately $460 million which is neither amortizable nor tax deductible.in cash. The divestiture of the Corporation’s commercial IT businesstransactions resulted in aan aggregate gain, net of state income taxes, of $15$51 million which waswe recorded in other income and expenses. The gain increased 2003expenses, and an increase in net earnings by approximately $8of $33 million ($0.020.08 per share).

In 2005, Lockheed Martin and Boeing entered into an agreement to create a joint venture that would combine the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. Government launches of the Corporation’s Atlas launch vehicles and Boeing’s Delta launch vehicles. The joint venture, named United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA), is structured as a 50-50 joint venture and would be accounted for as an equity investment. Under the terms of the joint venture, Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles would continue to be available as alternatives on individual launch missions. The agreement also stipulates that, upon closing of the transaction, Lockheed Martin and Boeing will dismiss all claims against each other in the pending civil litigation related to a previous competition for launches under the Air Force EELV program (see Note 15 for a discussion of that litigation).

The closing of the ULA transaction is subject to conditions to closing, including government and regulatory approvals and agreements in the United States and internationally. On August 9, 2005, the European Commission determined that ULA was compatible with European Union merger control regulation. On October 24, 2005, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requested additional information from Lockheed Martin and Boeing related to ULA in response to the pre-merger notice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR) submitted by the parties. The FTC’s “second request” extends the period the FTC is permitted to review the transaction under the HSR Act. The parties currently plan to close the ULA transaction as soon as practicable following satisfaction of all the closing conditions. The Corporation does not expect that the formation of ULA will have a significant impact on the Corporation’s results of operations or financial position for 2006. If the conditions to closing are not satisfied and the ULA transaction is not consummated by March 31, 2006, either Boeing or Lockheed Martin may terminate the joint venture agreement.

On February 17, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a lawsuit filed in October 2005, by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) against Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The SpaceX complaint alleged that Lockheed Martin and Boeing violated various provisions of federal and California antitrust laws, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and California unfair competition laws in connection with the Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program and the formation of the United Launch Alliance joint venture. In its order, the district court concluded that SpaceX failed to allege an injury-in-fact, because SpaceX does not presently have a launch vehicle capable of meeting Air Force EELV requirements. The court gave SpaceX leave to file an amended complaint.

Note 3 – Earnings Per ShareInvestments

Basic and diluted per share results for all periods presented were computed based onIn the net earnings for the respective periods. The weighted average numbersecond quarter of common shares outstanding during the period was used in the calculation of basic earnings per share. The weighted average number of common shares used in the calculation of diluted per share amounts is adjusted for the dilutive effects of stock options based on the treasury stock method.

Unless otherwise noted, all per share amounts cited in these financial statements are presented on a “per diluted share” basis.

The following table sets forth the computations of basic and diluted earnings per share:

(In millions, except per share data)

  2005  2004  2003

Net earnings for basic and diluted computations

  $1,825  $1,266  $1,053
            

Average common shares outstanding

      

Average number of common shares outstanding for basic computations

   440.3   443.1   446.5

Dilutive stock options

   5.4   4.0   3.5
            

Average number of common shares outstanding
for diluted computations

   445.7   447.1   450.0
            

Earnings per common share

      

Basic

  $4.15  $2.86  $2.36
            

Diluted

  $4.10  $2.83  $2.34
            

Note 4 – Receivables

(In millions)

  2005  2004 

U.S. Government

   

Amounts billed

  $1,364  $1,529 

Unbilled costs and accrued profits

   2,858   2,394 

Less customer advances and progress payments

   (563)  (594)
         
   3,659   3,329 
         

Foreign governments and commercial

   

Amounts billed

   471   408 

Unbilled costs and accrued profits

   477   402 

Less customer advances

   (28)  (45)
         
   920   765 
         
  $4,579  $4,094 
         

Substantially all of the December 31, 2005 unbilled costs and accrued profits are expected to be billed during 2006.

Note 5 – Inventories

(In millions)

  2005  2004 

Work in process, primarily related to long-term contracts and programs in progress

  $5,121  $4,697 

Less customer advances and progress payments

   (3,527)  (3,267)
         
   1,594   1,430 

Other inventories

   327   434 
         
  $1,921  $1,864 
         

Work in process inventories at December 31, 2005 and 2004 included general and administrative costs of $298 million and $321 million, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, general and administrative costs incurred and recorded in inventories totaled $1.9 billion, $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively, and general and administrative costs charged to cost of sales from inventories totaled $1.9 billion, $1.9 billion and $2.0 billion, respectively.

The Corporation has entered into agreements with suppliers located in Russia to provide launch services and rocket engines. Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center (Khrunichev) is the Russian manufacturer of Proton launch vehicles and provider of related launch services. Inventories at December 31, 2005 included amounts advanced to Khrunichev to provide contracted launch services totaling $190 million. In addition, inventories at December 31, 2005 included advances of $70 million to RD AMROSS, a joint venture between Pratt & Whitney and NPO Energomash, for the development and purchase, subject to certain conditions, of RD-180 booster engines used for Atlas V launch vehicles.

Inventories at December 31, 2005, also included deferred costs related to upgrading a West Coast launch facility for the Atlas V program. Under the contract with the U.S. Government, the Corporation will recover these costs over future launches from that facility.

Approximately $555 million of costs included in 2005 inventories, including amounts advanced to Khrunichev and certain Atlas V program costs, are expected to be recovered after 2006.

Note 6 – Property, Plant and Equipment

(In millions)

  2005  2004 

Land

  $112  $95 

Buildings

   3,828   3,593 

Machinery and equipment

   5,384   4,972 
         
   9,324   8,660 

Less accumulated depreciation and amortization

   (5,400)  (5,061)
         
  $3,924  $3,599 
         

In 2005, the Corporation recorded a charge, net of state income tax benefits, of $30 million in cost of sales related to impairment in the value of a single telecommunications satellite operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Corporation. The charge reduced net earnings by $19 million ($0.04 per share). The impairment charge was recorded due to concerns of overcapacity in markets served by the satellite.

During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Corporation recorded write-offs of fully depreciated property, plant and equipment totaling $216 million.

Note 7 – Investments in Equity Securities

(In millions)

  2005  2004

Equity method investments (ownership interest at December 31, 2005):

    

Intelsat, Ltd.

  $ —    $703

Other

   41   57
        
   41   760
        

Other investments (ownership interest at December 31, 2005):

    

Inmarsat plc (5.3%)

   146   46

Other

   9   6
        
   155   52
        
  $196  $812
        

Other equity method investments include United Space Alliance, LLC (50% ownership interest) and other smaller joint ventures in which the Corporation participates.

In 2003, Inmarsat Ventures, Ltd. was acquired by a consortium of private equity firms in a leveraged buyout transaction. In exchange for its interest, the Corporation received cash of $114 million and a 14% ownership interest in the new Inmarsat holding company, Inmarsat Group Holdings, Ltd., valued at $96 million. The Corporation recorded a deferred gain of $42 million from the transaction, representing the differences between the consideration received and the carrying value of its investment in Inmarsat Ventures of $168 million. During 2004, the Corporation received cash from Inmarsat Group Holdings, Ltd. amounting to $50 million, reducing its investment to $46 million while maintaining its 14% ownership interest.

In June 2005, Inmarsat plc (Inmarsat) completed itsan initial public offering (IPO) of 150 million of its ordinary shares on the London Stock Exchange. The IPO had the effect of diluting the Corporation’sour ownership from 14% to 8.9%. Inmarsat used a portion of the proceeds to redeem certain remaining equity-related instruments held by shareholders, including the Corporation.us. As a result, of these activities, the Corporationwe recognized the $42 million deferred gain that had beenwas recorded in 2003 related to this investment. Subsequent to the IPO, the investment in Inmarsat has been accounted for at fair value, with the unrealized gains reflected as a net after-tax amount in other comprehensive income. In October 2005, the Corporationwe sold approximately 16 million of itsour Inmarsat shares in a private transaction for $89 million, further reducing itsour ownership percentage to 5.3%. The aboveThese 2005 transactions resulted in the recording of gains, net of state income taxes, totaling $126 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in 2005 net earnings of $82 million ($0.18 per share). At December 31, 2005,In the increase in the fair valuefirst quarter of Inmarsat shares held by the Corporation resulted in an increase in other comprehensive income of $93 million, net of income taxes. In January 2006, the Corporationwe sold an additional 1221 million shares ofin Inmarsat plc (Inmarsat) for $75$132 million, reducing itsour ownership from 5.3% to 2.6%less than 1%. The gain fromAs a result of this sale is expected to increase 2006 net earnings by $47 million ($0.11 per share).

In January 2005, the Corporation completed the sale of its 25% interest in Intelsat, Ltd. to a private equity firm for $18.75 per share, or $752 million in total proceeds. The transaction, resulted in the recording ofwe recorded a gain, net of state income taxes, of $47$127 million in other income and expenses, which increased our net earnings by $83 million ($0.19 per share).

In the first quarter of 2006, we received proceeds from the sale of the assets of Space Imaging, LLC. The transaction resulted in a gain, net of state income taxes, of $23 million in other income and expenses, and an increase inincreased net earnings of $31by $15 million ($0.070.03 per share).

In the fourth quarter of 2005, the Corporationwe completed the sale of itsour interest in NeuStar, Inc. (NeuStar). The transaction resulted in the recording of a gain, net of state income taxes, of $30 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in net earnings of $19 million ($0.04 per share).

In the first quarter of 2005, we completed the sale of our 25% interest in Intelsat, Ltd. to a private equity firm for $18.75 per share, or $752 million in total proceeds. The transaction resulted in a gain, net of state income taxes, of $47 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in net earnings of $31 million ($0.07 per share).

In November 2004, a private equity firm purchased the outstanding shares of New Skies Satellites, N.V. (New Skies). The CorporationWe sold itsour shares for $148 million. The transaction resulted in the recording of a gain, net of state income taxes, of $91 million in other income and expenses, and an increase in net earnings of $59 million ($0.13 per share).

Other

In 2000, we sold our Aerospace Electronics Systems business. In connection with that sale, we established a transaction-related reserve to address an indemnity provision included in the sale agreement. The carryingrisks associated with that indemnity provision expired in 2006 and we reversed into earnings, net of state income taxes, $29 million. This resulted in an increase in net earnings of $19 million ($0.04 per share).

United Launch Alliance

On December 1, 2006, we completed a transaction with The Boeing Company (Boeing) that resulted in the formation of United Launch Alliance, LLC (ULA), a joint venture which combines the production, engineering, test and launch operations associated with U.S. Government launches of our Atlas launch vehicles and Boeing’s Delta launch vehicles. Under the terms of the joint venture master agreement, Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles will continue to be available as alternatives on individual launch missions. The joint venture is a limited liability company in which we and Boeing each own 50%. We are accounting for our investment in ULA under the equity method of accounting. We contributed assets to ULA, and ULA assumed liabilities of our Atlas business in exchange for our 50% ownership interest. The net book value of the Corporation’sassets contributed and liabilities assumed was approximately $200 million at December 1, 2006, the date of closing.

We accounted for the transfer at net book value, with no gain or loss recognized. If our proportionate share of ULA’s net assets exceeds the book value of our investment, we would recognize the difference ratably over the next 10 years in other income and expenses. We currently anticipate that our 50% ownership share of ULA’s net assets will exceed the book value of our investment in New SkiesULA, but that amount remains subject to adjustment based on the final working capital and value of other assets which we and Boeing contributed to form ULA. In addition, under our agreement with Boeing, we could be required to make an additional cash contribution to ULA based on changes in the working capital of the business and other assets we contributed. Any additional capital contribution would have the effect of increasing our investment and decreasing the difference between our investment and our share of ULA’s net assets. This would decrease the amount that we would amortize and recognize in other income and expenses in the future. We currently estimate that the amount by which our share of ULA’s net assets will exceed our investment will be between $200 million and $300 million. Both we and Boeing also have agreed to provide approximately $225 million in additional funding to ULA. As of December 31, 2006, we had provided $3 million of additional funding to ULA (see Note 14). The formation of ULA did not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position for 2006.

As required by the joint venture master agreement, following closing of the ULA transaction, we and Boeing filed a joint stipulation for dismissal of all claims against each other in the pending civil litigation related to a previous competition for launches under the U.S. Air Force EELV program, and to permanently close the case. On December 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court issued an order of dismissal with prejudice, dismissing all claims and counterclaims in the case (see Note 14).

Note 3 – Earnings Per Share

We compute basic and diluted per share amounts based on net earnings for the periods presented. We use the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period to calculate basic earnings per share. Our calculation of diluted per share amounts includes the dilutive effects of stock options and restricted stock based on the treasury stock method in the weighted average number of common shares.

Our $1.0 billion of floating rate convertible debentures had a dilutive effect on our earnings per share calculations during 2006. The debentures are convertible by holders into shares of our common stock on a contingent basis per the terms of the indenture agreement. The debentures are not convertible, unless the price of our common stock is greater than or equal to 130% of the applicable conversion price for a specified period during a quarter, or unless certain other events occur. The conversion price was marked$74.12 per share at December 31, 2006 and is expected to market through other comprehensive income priorchange over time as described in the indenture agreement. We have irrevocably agreed to pay only cash in lieu of common stock for the sale.accreted principal amount of the debentures relative to our conversion obligations, but have retained the right to satisfy the conversion obligations in excess of the accreted principal amount in cash and/or common stock. Though we have retained that right, FAS 128,Earnings Per Share, requires an assumption that shares will be used to pay the conversion obligations in excess of the accreted principal amount, and requires that those shares be included in our calculation of weighted average common shares

outstanding for diluted earnings per share computations. The number of shares included in the computations for 2006 was not material, and no such shares were included in the computations in 2005 or 2004, as the conversion obligations were not in excess of the accreted principal amount in those periods.

Unless otherwise noted, we present all per share amounts cited in these financial statements on a “per diluted share” basis.

The calculations of basic and diluted earnings per share are as follows:

    (In millions, except per share data)  2006  2005  2004

Net earnings for basic and diluted computations

  $2,529  $1,825  $1,266

Weighted average common shares outstanding:

      

Average number of common shares outstanding for basic computations

   428.1   440.3   443.1

Dilutive stock options, restricted stock and convertible securities

   8.3   5.4   4.0

Average number of common shares outstanding for diluted computations

   436.4   445.7   447.1

Earnings per common share

      

Basic

  $5.91  $4.15  $2.86

Diluted

  $5.80  $4.10  $2.83

Note 4 – Receivables

    (In millions)  2006     2005 

U.S. Government

      

Amounts billed

  $1,671     $1,364 

Unbilled costs and accrued profits

   2,284      2,858 

Less customer advances and progress payments

   (579)     (563)
    3,376      3,659 

Foreign governments and commercial

      

Amounts billed

   410      471 

Unbilled costs and accrued profits

   862      477 

Less customer advances

   (53)     (28)
    1,219      920 
   $4,595     $4,579 

We expect to bill substantially all of the December 31, 2006 unbilled costs and accrued profits during 2007.

Note 5 – Inventories

    (In millions)  2006     2005 

Work in process, primarily related to long-term contracts

    and programs in progress

  $3,857     $5,121 

Less customer advances and progress payments

   (2,704)     (3,527)
   1,153      1,594 

Other inventories

   504      327 
   $1,657     $1,921 

Work in process inventories at December 31, 2006 and 2005 included general and administrative costs of $329 million and $298 million, respectively. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, general and administrative costs incurred and recorded in inventories totaled $1.9 billion, $1.9 billion and $1.8 billion, respectively, and general and administrative costs charged to cost of sales from inventories totaled $2.0 billion, $1.9 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively.

Note 86 – Property, Plant and Equipment

    (In millions)  2006   2005 

Land

  $121   $112 

Buildings

   4,258    3,828 

Machinery and equipment

   5,250    5,384 
   9,629    9,324 

Less accumulated depreciation and amortization

   (5,573)   (5,400)
   $4,056   $3,924 

During the year ended December 31, 2006, we wrote off $247 million related to certain plant and equipment that had been fully depreciated or amortized.

Note 7 – Debt

The Corporation’s long-term debt is primarily in the form of publicly issued fixed-rate and variable-rate notes and debentures, as follows:

 

(In millions)

  Interest rate  2005  2004

Notes due 12/01/2005

  7.95% $—    $14

Notes due 5/15/2006

  7.25   193   205

Medium Term Notes due 2006-7

  7.70 – 8.66   41   64

Notes due 6/15/2008

  7.70   103   105

Notes due 12/01/2009

  8.20   246   327

Debentures due 4/15/2013

  7.375   150   150

Debentures due 5/01/2016

  7.65   600   600

Debentures due 1/15/2023

  8.375   100   100

Debentures due 9/15/2023

  7.0   200   200

Notes due 6/15/2024

  8.375   216   216

Debentures due 6/15/2025

  7.625   150   150

Debentures due 5/01/2026

  7.75   423   423

Debentures due 12/01/2029

  8.5   1,250   1,250

Convertible Debentures due 8/15/2033

  LIBOR – 0.25   1,000   1,000

Debentures due 5/01/2036

  7.20   300   300

Other

    14   15
         
    4,986   5,119

Less current maturities

    202   15
         
   $4,784  $5,104
         
    (In millions)  Interest rate  2006   2005

Notes due 05/15/2006

  7.25  $   $193

Medium Term Notes due 2006-2007

  7.70 – 8.66   32    41

Notes due 06/15/2008

  7.70   103    103

Notes due 12/01/2009

  8.20   241    246

Debentures due 04/15/2013

  7.375   150    150

Debentures due 05/01/2016

  7.65   600    600

Debentures due 01/15/2023

  8.375   3    100

Debentures due 09/15/2023

  7.0   200    200

Notes due 06/15/2024

  8.375   167��   216

Debentures due 06/15/2025

  7.625   150    150

Debentures due 05/01/2026

  7.75   423    423

Debentures due 12/01/2029

  8.5   317    1,250

Convertible Debentures due 08/15/2033

  LIBOR –0.25   1,000    1,000

Debentures due 05/01/2036

  7.20   300    300

Notes due 09/01/2036

  6.15   1,079    

Discount on Notes due 09/01/2036

  N/A   (345)   

Other

  Various   19    14
     4,439    4,986

Less current maturities

      34    202
      $4,405   $4,784

In the fourth quarter of 2005, the Corporation repurchased $83August 2006, we issued $1,079 million of new 6.15% Notes due 2036 (the New Notes). The New Notes were issued in exchange for a portion of our then outstanding debt securities listed in the following table (the Old Notes), and cash consideration of $343 million. Holders also received a cash payment representing accrued and unpaid interest on the Old Notes.

    (In millions)  

Principal amount

exchanged

Old Notes exchanged—

    

8.50% Debentures due 2029

  $933  

8.375% Senior Debentures due 2023

   97  

8.375% Senior Debentures due 2024

   49   
   $  1,079   

We accounted for the transaction as an exchange of debt under Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue 96-19,Debtor’s Accounting for a Modification or Exchange of Debt Instruments. The cash consideration of $343 million, which is included in the statement of cash flows in financing activities, will be amortized over the life of the New Notes as a discount,

using the effective interest method, and recorded in interest expense. Accordingly, the New Notes are included on our balance sheet net of the unamortized discount under the caption long-term debt, in the open market.net. The chargeexpenses associated with those repurchases was not material to the Corporation’s results of operations or financial position.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Corporation completed tender offers to purchase for cash $285 million in principal amount of its outstanding 7.70% notes due June 15, 2008 and $666 million in principal amount of its 8.20% notes due December 1, 2009. The Corporation recorded a charge,exchange, net of state income tax benefits, totaling $154totaled $16 million and were recorded in other income and expenses related to the tender offers. The chargeexpenses. They reduced 2004 net earnings by $100$11 million ($0.220.03 per share).

In 2003, the Corporation issuedWe have outstanding $1.0 billion in floating rate convertible debentures due in 2033. The debentures bear interest at a rate equal to three-month LIBOR less 25 basis points, reset quarterly. The interest rate in effect at December 31, 20052006 was 4.09%5.12%. Interest on the debentures is payable quarterly through August 15, 2008, after which the interest will accrue as part of the value of the debenture and will be payable, along with the principal amount of the debenture, at maturity. The debentures are convertible by holders into shares of the Corporation’sour common stock on a contingent basis under the circumstances discussed below and as described in the indenture related to these securities as discussed below.indenture. The debentures are not convertible

unless the price of the Corporation’sour common stock is greater than or equal to 130% of the applicable conversion price for a specified period during athe previous quarter, or unless certain events occur including, among others: Lockheed Martin callingwe call the debentures for redemption; Lockheed Martin distributingwe distribute to all holders of itsour common stock certain rights to purchase shares of its common stock at less than market value on the trading day immediately preceding the declaration date of the distribution; and the credit rating assigned to the debentures by either Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s is lower than Ba1 or BB+.

The conversion price was $75.00$74.12 per share at December 31, 2005,2006, and is expected to change over time as provided for in the indenture agreement. TheWe adjust the conversion price is adjusted upon the occurrence ofwhen certain events occur including, but not limited to, the following: the payment of dividends and other distributions on Lockheed Martinour common stock, payable exclusively in shares of our stock; the issuance to all holders of Lockheed Martinour common stock of rights that allow them to purchase shares of its common stock at less than market price during a specified period; distributions by Lockheed Martinwe make consisting exclusively of cash to all holders of our common stock, excluding any quarterly cash dividend that does not exceed $0.12 per share.

The Corporation hasWe have irrevocably elected and agreed to pay only cash in lieu of common stock for the accreted principal amount of the debentures in respect of itsrelative to the conversion obligations described above. The Corporation hasWe have retained the right, however, to elect to satisfy any and allthe conversion obligations in excess of the accreted principal amount of the debentures in cash or common stock or a combination of cash and common stock. There wasis no amount exceeding the accreted principal at the end of 2005, nor will there be until the market price of our stock exceeds the conversion price ofprice. This occurred for the Corporation’s stock. Accordingly,first time in 2006; accordingly, the debentures had no impact on the calculation of diluted earnings per share for 2005. The Corporationprior to 2006 (see Note 3). We also hashave the right to redeem any or all of the debentures at any time after August 15, 2008.

In 2003, the Corporation completed the purchase of a total principal amount of $1.42006, we entered an agreement to swap variable interest rates on our $1.0 billion of notes andconvertible debentures with floating rates based on LIBOR for a fixed interest rate through August 15, 2008. We designated the agreement as a combinationcash flow hedge of tender offers, redemptionthe forecasted LIBOR-based variable interest payments. Based on our evaluation at the inception of callable debentures and repurchasesthe hedging agreement, we expect the hedging relationship to be highly effective in achieving the open market. The Corporation recorded charges,offsetting cash flows attributable to the hedged variable interest payments, resulting in a fixed net interest expense reported on the statement of state income tax benefits, totaling $146 million inearnings. We determined that the hedging relationship remained effective at December 31, 2006. We adjust the fair value of the interest rate swap agreement at each balance sheet date, with a corresponding adjustment to other income and expenses related to these transactions. The charges reduced 2003 net earnings by $96 million ($0.21 per share).comprehensive income. At December 31, 2006, the fair value of the interest rate swap agreement was not material.

The registered holders of $300 million of 40-year debentures issued in 1996 may elect, between March 1 and April 1, 2008, to have their debentures repaid by the Corporation on May 1, 2008.

At December 31, 2005, the Corporation2006, we had in place a $1.5 billion revolving credit facility which expires in July 2010. There were no borrowings outstanding under the facility at December 31, 2005.2006. Borrowings under the credit facility would be unsecured and bear interest at rates based, at the Corporation’sour option, on the Eurodollar rate or a bank defined Base Rate. Each bank’s obligation to make loans under the credit facility is subject to, among other things, the Corporation’sour compliance with various representations, warranties and covenants, including covenants limiting theour ability of the Corporation and certain of itsour subsidiaries to encumber assets and a covenant not to exceed a maximum leverage ratio.

The Corporation’sOur scheduled long-term debt maturities for the five years following December 31, 20052006 are: $202$34 million in 2006; $33 million in 2007; $1032007, $105 million in 2008; $247$242 million in 2009; $1 million in 2010; $1 million in 2011; and $4,400$4,401 million thereafter. These amounts do not include the $345 million unamortized discount recorded in connection with the debt exchange in 2006.

The estimated fair values of the Corporation’sour long-term debt instruments at December 31, 2005,2006, aggregated approximately $6.2$5.6 billion, compared with a carrying amount of approximately $5.0 billion.$4.8 billion, excluding the $345 million unamortized discount. The fair values were estimated based on quoted market prices for those instruments that are publicly traded. For privately placed debt, the fair values were estimated based on the quoted market prices for similar issues, or on current rates offered to the Corporation for debt with similar remaining maturities.prices. Unless otherwise indicated elsewhere in the notes to the financial statements, the carrying values of the Corporation’sour other financial instruments approximate their fair values.

Interest payments were $337 million in 2006, $356 million in 2005 and $420 million in 2004 and $519 million in 2003.2004.

Note 98 – Income Taxes

TheOur provision for federal and foreign income taxes consisted of the following components:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004 2003   2006  2005  2004 

Federal income taxes

     

Federal income taxes:

      

Current

  $742  $445  $(14)  $979  $742  $445 

Deferred

   24   (58)  467    73   24   (58)
          

Total federal income taxes

   766   387   453    1,052   766   387 

Foreign income taxes

   25   11   26 
          

Foreign income taxes:

      

Current

   9   25  $11 

Deferred

   2       

Total foreign income taxes

   11   25   11 

Total income taxes provided

  $791  $398  $479   $1,063  $791  $398 
          

Net provisions for stateState income taxes are included in our operations as general and administrative expenses, which are primarily allocable tocosts and, under U.S. Government contracts. Theregulations, are allowable in establishing prices for the products and services we sell to the U.S. Government. Therefore, a substantial portion of state income taxes is included in our sales and cost of sales. As a result, the impact of certain transactions on our operating profit (earnings before interest and taxes) and other matters disclosed in these financial statements is disclosed net of state income taxes. Our total net state income tax expense was $113 million for 2006, $92 million for 2005 and $78 million for 2004 and $38 million for 2003.2004.

AOur reconciliation of income tax expense computed using the U.S. federal statutory income tax rate of 35% to actual income tax expense is as follows:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003 

Income tax expense at the U.S. federal statutory tax rate

  $916  $582  $536 

(Reduction) increase in tax expense from:

    

Extraterritorial income exclusion benefit

   (66)  (40)  (41)

U.S. production activity benefit

   (19)  —     —   

Tax deductible dividends

   (26)  (21)  (15)

Closure of IRS examination

   —     (144)  —   

Other, net

   (14)  21   (1)
             

Actual income tax expense

  $791  $398  $479 
             

    (In millions)  2006   2005   2004 

Income tax expense at the U.S. federal statutory tax rate

  $1,257   $916   $582 

(Reduction) increase in tax expense from:

      

Extraterritorial income exclusion (ETI) benefit

   (63)   (66)   (40)

Refund claims for additional ETI benefits

   (62)        

Tax deductible dividends

   (29)   (26)   (21)

U.S. production activity benefit

   (21)   (19)    

Closure of IRS examination

           (144)

Other, net

   (19)   (14)   21 

Actual income tax expense

  $1,063   $791   $398 

In 2006, we recorded a tax benefit related to claims filed with the Internal Revenue Service for additional ETI tax benefits for sales in previous years. Recognition of this benefit decreased income tax expense by $62 million ($0.14 per share), and reduced our effective tax rate for 2006 by 1.7%. The reduction in income tax expense of $144 million in 2004 from the closure of an IRS examination primarily resulted from the examination of tax periods through December 31, 2002.

Current income taxes payable of $71$243 million and $28$71 million at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, respectively, are included in other current liabilities inon the consolidated balance sheet.

The primary components of the Corporation’sour federal and foreign deferred income tax assets and liabilities at December 31 were as follows:

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004   2006 2005

Deferred tax assets related to:

      

Contract accounting methods

  $594  $689   $643  $594

Accrued compensation and benefits

   516   460    580   516

Accumulated postretirement benefit obligations

   497   454    417   497

Pensions

   213   197    1,362(a)  213

Foreign company operating losses and credits

   42   —  

Other

   71   112    —     71
       

Gross deferred tax assets

   3,044   1,891

Less: valuation allowance

   34(b)  —  

Net deferred tax assets

   3,010   1,891
   1,891   1,912 

Deferred tax liabilities related to:

      

Purchased intangibles

   264   264    358   264

Property, plant and equipment

   211   229    199   211
       
   475   493 
       

Other

   66   —  

Deferred tax liabilities

   623   475

Net deferred tax assets

  $1,416(a) $1,419(a)  $2,387  $1,416
       

 

(a)

These amounts included $555

The increase in the deferred tax balance related to pensions includes the adoption of FAS 158 (see Note 12).

(b)

A valuation allowance of $34 million and $437 million, respectively, of net noncurrenthas been provided against foreign company deferred tax assets which are in other assets in the consolidated balance sheet.arising from carryforwards of unused tax benefits.

FederalU.S. income taxes and foreign withholding taxes have not been provided on earnings of $82 million that have not been distributed by our non-U.S. companies at December 31, 2006. Our intention is to permanently reinvest these earnings, thereby indefinitely postponing their remittance. If these earnings were remitted, we estimate that the additional income taxes after foreign tax credits would be about $13 million.

Our federal and foreign income tax payments, net of refunds received, were $859 million in 2006, $599 million in 2005 and $363 million in 2004 and $170 million in 2003.2004. Included in these amounts are tax payments and refunds related to the Corporation’sour divestiture activities.

The Corporation realized an income tax cash benefit of $69 million in 2005, $34 million in 2004 and $13 million in 2003 as a result of exercises of employee stock options. This benefit is recorded in stockholders’ equity under the caption, “Stock-based awards and ESOP activity.”

Note 109 – Other Income and Expenses, Net

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003   2006   2005   2004 

Interest income

  $143  $104  $75   $199   $143   $104 

Equity in net earnings (losses) of equity investees

   108   67   107    130    108    67 

Gains related to Inmarsat transactions

   126   —     —   

Gain on sale of interest in Intelsat

   47   —     —   

Gain on sale of interest in NeuStar

   30   —     —   

Gains on sales of various investment interests

   127    203    91 

Gain on sales of surplus land

   51    —      —   

Earnings from expiration of AES transaction indemnification

   29    —      —   

Gain on sale of Space Imaging’s assets

   23    —      —   

Debt exchange expenses

   (16)   —      —   

Charge for early repayment of debt

   (10)  (154)  (146)   —      (10)   (154)

Gain on sale of interest in New Skies

   —     91   —   

Gain on sale of COMSAT General business

   —     28   —      —      —      28 

Gain on sale of commercial IT business

   —     —     15 

Other activities, net

   5   (15)  (8)   (24)   5    (15)
            $519   $449   $121 
  $449  $121  $43 
          

See Notes 2 and 7 for a discussion of certain of the transactions included in the table above.

Note 1110 – Stockholders’ Equity

At December 31, 2005, the2006, our authorized capital of the Corporation was composed of 1.5 billion shares of common stock, 50 million shares of series preferred stock, and 20 million shares of Series A preferred stock. Of the 434423 million shares of common stock issued

and outstanding, approximately 432421 million shares were considered outstanding for balance sheet presentation purposes; the remaining shares were held by the Corporation in trusts we established to pay future benefits to eligible retirees and dependents under certain benefit plans. No shares of the series preferred stock shares were issued and no shares of the Series A preferred stock were outstanding at December 31, 2005.2006.

In October 2002, the Corporationwe announced a share repurchase program for the repurchase of up to 23 million shares of itsour common stock from time-to-time. Under the program, management haswe have discretion to determine the number and price of the shares to be repurchased, and the timing of any repurchases in compliance with applicable law and regulation. In February 2004 and September 2005,Since the program’s inception, our board of directors has authorized an additional 2085 million shares and 45 million shares, respectively, were authorized for repurchase under the program. The CorporationWe repurchased 27.6 million shares under the program in 2006 for $2.1 billion, 19.7 million shares under the program in 2005 for $1.2 billion and 14.7 million shares in 2004 for $772 million and 10.7 million shares in 2003 for $482 million. From the inception of the program through December 31, 2005,2006, a total of 4673.7 million shares have been repurchased under the program for $2.5$4.6 billion. As of December 31, 2005,2006, there were a total of 4234.3 million shares that may be repurchased in the future under the program.

As part of the share repurchase program, the Corporation may from time-to-time enter into structured share repurchase transactions with financial institutions. These agreements generally require an up-front cash payment in exchange for the right to receive shares of Lockheed Martin’s common stock or cash at the expiration of the agreement, dependent upon the closing price of the common stock at the maturity date. The Corporation entered into several such transactions during 2005 which, in the aggregate, required up-front cash payments totaling $396 million. Based on the closing price of its common stock on the maturity dates of the agreements,

certain of the transactions resulted in the Corporation repurchasing 3.1 million shares of common stock at a total cost of $195 million. These amounts are included in the total share repurchase figures included in the previous paragraph. The Corporation received its up-front cash payment plus a premium for the remaining transactions that did not result in the repurchase of shares. There were no such transactions outstanding at December 31, 2005.

Note 1211 – Stock-Based Compensation

In April 2005,Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted FAS 123(R),Share-Based Payments, and the stockholders approvedrelated SEC rules included in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, on a modified prospective basis. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we recorded non-cash compensation cost related to stock options and restricted stock totaling $111 million, which is included in our statement of earnings in cost of sales. The net impact to earnings for the year was $70 million ($0.16 per share). Compensation cost related to restricted stock in prior periods was not material. The above amounts approximate the incremental impact of adopting FAS 123(R) as compared to the application of the original provisions of FAS 123.

Stock-Based Compensations Plans

We had two stock-based compensation plans in place at December 31, 2006: the Lockheed Martin Amended and Restated 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan (the Award Plan) and the Lockheed Martin Directors Equity Plan (the Directors Plan). Under the Award Plan, employees ofwe have the Corporation may be grantedright to grant key employees stock-based incentive awards, including options to purchase common stock, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock or stock units. The maximum numberEmployees also may receive cash-based incentive awards. We evaluate the types and mix of shares that may be subject to such stock-based incentive awards in any calendar year is limited to 1.6% ofon an ongoing basis and may vary the Corporation’s common stock outstandingmix based on the December 31 preceding the grant. The maximum number of shares that may be issued as restricted stock awards (RSAs) is limited to 28% of the total number of shares authorized to be issued underour overall strategy regarding compensation.

Under the Award Plan. Employees may also be granted cash-based incentive awards. These awards may be granted either individually or in combination with other awards.

The Award Plan, requires thatthe exercise price of options to purchase common stock have an exercise price ofmay not be less than 100% of the market value of the underlyingour stock on the date of grant. Under the Award Plan, noNo award of stock options may become fully vested prior to the second anniversary of the grant, and no portion of ana stock option grant may become vested in less than one year except(except for 1.5 million ofstock options that are specifically exempted from vesting restrictions.restrictions). The minimum vesting period for RSAsrestricted stock or stock units payable in stock is three years. Award agreements may provide for shorter vesting periods or vesting following termination of employment in the case of death, disability, divestiture, retirement, change of control or layoff. The Award Plan does not impose any minimum vesting periods on other types of awards. The maximum term of ana stock option or any other award is 10 years. The Award Plan allows

We generally recognize compensation cost for stock options ratably over the Corporationthree-year vesting period for active, non-retirement eligible employees and over the initial one-year vesting period for active, retirement eligible employees. We have continued to provide for financing by award recipients, other than executive officers,use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of stock options granted after the exercise or purchase pricedate of common stock underlying an award, subject to certain conditions, by interest-bearing notes payable to the Corporation. There were no such notes payable at December 31, 2005.

Prior to April 2003, the Corporation granted stock-basedadoption of FAS 123(R). We record RSAs and cash-based incentive awards pursuant to the Lockheed Martin Corporation 1995 Omnibus Performance Award Plan (the Omnibus Plan), which was approved by the stockholders in March 1995. AwardsRSUs issued under the Omnibus Plan were similar to those authorized by the Award Plan except that the Omnibus Plan did not include any minimum vesting requirements.

Under the Award Plan, 590,000 and 25,000 RSAs were issued in 2004 and 2003, respectively. There were no RSAs issued in 2005. The shares were recorded based on the market value of the Corporation’sour common stock on the date of the award andaward. We recognize the related compensation expense is recognized over the vesting period. The weighted average fair value ofEmployees who earn RSAs in 2004receive the restricted shares and 2003 was $46.11 and $48.12, respectively. Recipients are entitled to receivethe related cash dividends and todividends. They may vote their respective shares, but are prohibited from sellingmay not sell or transferring

transfer shares prior to vesting. The RSAs generally vest over three to five years from the grant date. The impactEmployees who are granted RSUs also receive dividend-equivalent cash payments; however, the shares are not issued until the RSUs vest, generally three years from the date of RSAs was not materialthe award. Otherwise, the accounting treatment for RSUs is similar to net earnings in 2005, 2004 or 2003.the accounting for RSAs.

In April 1999,Under the stockholders approved the Lockheed Martin Directors Equity Plan, (the Directors Plan). Approximatelydirectors receive approximately 50% of each director’stheir annual compensation is awarded underin the Directors Plan. Directorsform of the Corporationequity-based compensation. Each director may elect to receive suchhis or her compensation in the form of stock units which track investment returns to changes in value of the Corporation’sour common stock with dividends reinvested, options to purchase common stock of the Corporation, or a combination of the two. TheUnder the Directors Plan, requires that options to purchase common stock have an exercise price of not less than 100% of the market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. Except in certain circumstances,Stock options and stock units issued under the Directors Plan vest on the first anniversary of the grant.grant, except in certain circumstances. The maximum term of ana stock option is ten10 years.

The

Our stockholders have approved the Award Plan and the Directors Plan, as well as the number of shares of Lockheed Martinour common stock authorized for issuance under these plans, have been approved by the stockholders of the Corporation.plans. At December 31, 2005, the number of2006, we had 42 million shares of Lockheed Martin common stock reserved for issuance under the Corporation’sour stock option and award plans, totaled 55.7 million.

of which 17 million remained available for grant under the plans. We issue new shares upon the exercise of stock options or vesting of RSUs.

2006 Activity

Stock Options

The following table summarizes stock option and restricted stock activity related toduring the Corporation’s plans during 2005, 2004 and 2003:year ended December 31, 2006:

 

   

Number of Shares

(In thousands)

  

Weighted
Average
Exercise Price

   

Available

for Grant

  Options
Outstanding
  

December 31, 2002

  12,375  30,634  $39.42
        

Additional shares reserved

  22,500  —     —  

Retired Omnibus Plan shares

  (4,814) —     —  

Options granted

  (6,664) 6,664   51.08

Options exercised

  —    (1,637)  26.96

Options terminated

  29  (181)  49.12

Restricted stock awards

  (25) —     —  
        

December 31, 2003

  23,401  35,480   42.14
        

Options granted

  (7,314) 7,314   49.27

Options exercised

  —    (4,729)  34.23

Options terminated

  160  (242)  51.66

Restricted stock awards

  (590) —     —  
        

December 31, 2004

  15,657  37,823   44.44
        

Additional shares reserved

  12,000  —     —  

Options granted

  (6,413) 6,413   57.81

Options exercised

  —    (9,740)  41.70

Options terminated

  300  (358)  53.93

Restricted stock awards

  40  —     —  
        

December 31, 2005

  21,584  34,138   47.64
        

Approximately 21.2 million, 26.4 million and 25.5 million outstanding options were exercisable by employees at December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

In February 2006, an additional 3.8 million options and 1.3 million restricted stock units were granted to employees. The accounting treatment for restricted stock units is similar to the accounting for RSAs discussed earlier, except that the shares are not issued until the restricted stock units vest, no earlier than three years from the date of the award.

Information regarding options outstanding at December 31, 2005 follows:

Range of Exercise Prices

  

Number of
Options

(In thousands)

  Weighted
Average
Exercise Price
  

Weighted

Average Remaining
Contractual Life

(In years)

Options outstanding:

      

Less than $20.00

  1,349  $18.17  4.0

$20.00 - $29.99

  536   25.12  4.4

$30.00 - $39.99

  5,106   35.98  3.8

$40.00 - $50.00

  8,683   48.36  6.4

Greater than $50.00

  18,464   53.32  6.9
         

Total

  34,138  $47.64  6.1
         

Options exercisable:

      

Less than $20.00

  1,349  $18.17  4.0

$20.00 - $29.99

  536   25.12  4.4

$30.00 - $39.99

  5,106   35.98  3.8

$40.00 - $50.00

  4,026   47.33  4.4

Greater than $50.00

  10,209   51.07  5.5
         

Total

  21,226  $43.99  4.8
         
    

Number of
Stock Options

(In thousands)

   Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
  

Weighted
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Life

(In years)

  

Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value

(In millions)

Outstanding at December 31, 2005

  34,138   $47.64    

Granted

  3,847    67.83    

Exercised

  (13,594)   46.13    

Terminated

  (201)   53.95    

Outstanding at December 31, 2006

  24,190    51.65  6.3  $977.9

Vested and unvested expected to vest at December 31, 2006

  24,019    51.56  6.3   973.1

Exercisable at December 31, 2006

  14,074    45.88  5.0   650.1

Stock options granted in 2005 and 2004 under the Award Plan and stock options granted in 2003 under the Omnibus Plan have ten-year terms and generally vest over a three-year service period.three years and have 10-year terms. Exercise prices of stock options awarded for all yearsperiods were equal to the market price of the stock on the date of grant. The weighted-average grant-date fair value of stock options granted during the year ended December 31, 2006 was $17.64. In addition, the aggregate fair value of all the stock options that vested during the year was $103 million, while the aggregate intrinsic value of all of the stock options that were exercised was $389 million.

We estimate the fair value for stock options at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which requires us to make certain assumptions. We estimate volatility based on the historical volatility of our stock price over the past five years. We base the average expected life on the contractual term of the stock option, historical trends in employee exercise activity and post-vesting employment termination trends. We base the risk-free interest rate on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with a remaining term equal to the expected life assumed at the date of grant. We estimate forfeitures at the date of grant based on historical experience. Prior to adopting FAS 123(R), we recorded forfeitures as they occurred for purposes of estimating pro forma compensation expense under FAS 123. The impact of forfeitures is not material.

We used the following weighted average assumptions in the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair values of stock-based compensation awards during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004:

    2006     2005     2004 

Risk-free interest rate

  4.50%    3.70%    3.19%

Dividend yield

  1.80%    1.73%    1.50%

Volatility factors

  0.260     0.259     0.365 

Expected option life

  5 years     5 years     5 years 

RSU and RSA Activity

The following table summarizes activity related to nonvested RSUs and RSAs during the year ended December 31, 2006:

    

Number of RSUs
/ RSAs

(In thousands)

   

Weighted Average
Grant-Date Fair

Value Per Share

Nonvested at December 31, 2005

  577   $46.04

Granted

  1,328    68.48

Vested

  (59)   52.84

Terminated

  (59)   55.61

Nonvested at December 31, 2006

  1,787    62.27

Summary of 2006 Activity

As of December 31, 2006, we had $118 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to nonvested stock options, RSUs and RSAs. We expect that cost to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.7 years. We received cash from the exercise of stock options totaling $627 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, we realized a $136 million tax benefit from the exercise of stock options during 2006. Consistent with FAS 123(R), we classified $129 million of this benefit as a financing cash inflow in the statement of cash flows, and the balance was classified as cash from operations. We realized $69 million and $34 million of tax benefits from stock options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 and presented those tax benefits as cash from operations in their entirety.

2005 and 2004 Reported and Pro Forma Results

Reported and pro forma information regarding net earnings and earnings per share information for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 are as follows. The disclosures for 2005 include $33 million ($0.08 per share) as an inception-to-date adjustment of fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense related to retirement eligible employees with outstanding and unvested stock option awards. This adjustment reflects the service period as one year rather than the original vesting period, since our stock option award agreements allow employees to retain all stock option awards held through the initial one year vesting date prior to retirement and to continue vesting in the award as if their employment had continued.

The weighted average common shares outstanding for both the Corporation had accounted for its employee stock optionsbasic and fully diluted calculations are the same as compensation expense under the fair value method is included inthose used to compute earnings per share (see Note 1.3).

    (In millions, except per share data)  2005     2004 

Net earnings

      

As reported

  $1,825     $1,266 

Fair value-based compensation cost, net of taxes

      

Fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense

   (56)     (48)

Inception-to-date adjustment

   (33)     —   

Pro forma net earnings

  $1,736     $1,218 

Earnings per basic share

      

As reported

  $4.15     $2.86 

Fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense

   (0.12)     (0.11)

Inception-to-date adjustment

   (0.08)     —   

Pro forma

  $3.95     $2.75 

Earnings per diluted share

      

As reported

  $4.10     $2.83 

Fair value-based, pro forma compensation expense

   (0.12)     (0.11)

Inception-to-date adjustment

   (0.08)     —   

Pro forma

  $3.90     $2.72 

Note 1312 – Postretirement Benefit Plans

Defined contribution plansThe Corporation maintainsWe maintain a number of defined contribution plans with 401(k) features that cover substantially all of our employees. Under the provisions of theseour 401(k) plans, our employees’ eligible contributions are matched by the Corporation atour established rates. The Corporation’sOur matching obligations were $303 million in 2006, $273 million in 2005 and $259 million in 2004, and $238 million in 2003, the majority of which were funded in Lockheed Martinour common stock.

The Lockheed Martin CorporationOur Salaried Savings Plan is a defined contribution plan with a 401(k) feature that includes an ESOP. The ESOP purchased 34.8 million shares of the Corporation’sour common stock in 1989 with the proceeds from a $500 million note issue which was guaranteed by the Corporation.we guaranteed. The final payment on theour debt was made in May 2004. The Corporation’sOur match in years prior to 2005 was partially fulfilled with stock released from the ESOP at approximately 2.2 million shares per year based upon the debt repayment schedule. Compensationyear. We recognized $56 million in compensation costs recognized relativein 2004 related to the ESOP shares were $56 million and $108 million in 2004 and 2003, respectively. The remainder ofshares. Since 2005, the Corporation’sentire match to the Salaried Savings Plan washas been fulfilled through purchases of common stock from participant account balance

reallocations or through newly issued shares fromshares. At December 31, 2006, the Corporation. Interest incurred on the ESOP debt, as well as the weighted average unallocated ESOP shares excluded in calculating earnings per share, in 2004 and 2003 were not material. The ESOPSalaried Savings Plan held approximately 46.163.3 million issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation’sour common stock, at December 31, 2005, all of which were allocated to participant accounts.

Certain plans for hourly employees include a non-leveraged ESOP. In one such plan, the match is made, generally at the election of the participant, in either the Corporation’sour common stock or cash which is invested at the participant’s direction in one of the plan’s other investment options. The Corporation’s contributionsContributions to these plans were made through small amounts of newly issued shares from the Corporationby us or cash contributed to the ESOP trust which was used by the trustee, if so elected, to purchase common stock from participant account balance reallocations or in the open market for allocation to participant accounts. This ESOP trust held approximately 2.72.4 million issued and outstanding shares of the Corporation’sour common stock at December 31, 2005,2006, all of which were allocated to participant accounts.

Defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical and life insurance plans – Most of our employees hired on or before December 31, 2005 are covered by defined benefit pension plans, and we provide certain health care and life insurance benefits are provided to eligible retirees by the Corporation. Effectiveretirees. Non-union represented employees hired after January 1, 2006 new non-union represented employees aredo not being covered by theparticipate in our defined benefit pension plans, but are eligible to participate in a new defined contribution plan in addition to our other retirement savings plans. The Corporation currently plans to offer thoseThose employees have the ability to participate in itsour retiree medical plans, but willwe do not subsidize the cost of their participation effective January 1, 2006. The Corporation hasparticipation. We have made contributions to trusts established to pay future benefits to eligible retirees and dependents (including Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association trusts and 401(h) accounts, the assets of which will be used to pay expenses of certain retiree medical plans) established to pay future benefits to eligible retirees and dependents. The Corporation uses. We use December 31 as itsthe measurement date. Benefit obligations as of the end of each year reflect assumptions in effect as of those dates. Net pension and net retiree medical costs for each of the years presented were based on assumptions in effect at the end of the respective preceding year.

In December 2006, we adopted the recognition and disclosure provisions of FAS 158, which required us to recognize assets for all of our overfunded postretirement benefit plans and liabilities for our underfunded plans at December 31, 2006, with a corresponding noncash adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax, in stockholders’ equity. The funded status is measured as the difference between the fair value of the plan’s assets and the projected benefit obligation (PBO) of the plan. The adjustment to stockholders’ equity represents the net unrecognized actuarial losses and prior service costs which were previously netted against the plan’s funded status on our balance sheet in accordance with FAS 87. The adjustment also includes the elimination of the minimum pension liability and intangible asset related to our defined benefit pension plans that had been recorded prior to its adoption.

The unrecognized amounts recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss will be subsequently recognized as net periodic pension cost consistent with our historical accounting policy for amortizing those amounts. Actuarial gains and losses that arise in future periods and are not recognized as net periodic pension cost in those periods will be recognized as increases or decreases in other comprehensive income, net of tax, in the period they arise. Actuarial gains and losses recognized in other comprehensive income are adjusted as they are subsequently recognized as a component of net periodic pension cost.

The incremental impact of adopting the provisions of FAS 158 on our balance sheet at December 31, 2006 is presented in the following table. The adoption of FAS 158 had no effect on our statements of earnings or cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2006, or for any prior period presented, and will not affect our operating results in future periods.

   Before adoption of
FAS 158
   Adjustments   

After adoption of

FAS 158

 
    (In millions)  December 31, 2006 

Prepaid pension asset

  $1,360   $(1,125)  $235 

Long-term deferred income taxes

   (167)   1,654    1,487 

Other assets

   2,726    (292)   2,434 

Accrued pension liabilities

   (273)   (2,752)   (3,025)

Other postretirement benefit liabilities

   (1,057)   (439)   (1,496)

Other liabilities

   (2,753)   (115)   (2,868)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

   (492)   (3,069)   (3,561)

Stockholders’ equity

   9,953    (3,069)   6,884 

Included in accumulated other comprehensive loss at December 31, 2006 are the following amounts that have not yet been recognized in net periodic pension cost: unrecognized prior service costs of $394 million ($252 million net of tax) and unrecognized actuarial losses $5.0 billion ($3.2 billion net of tax). Though primarily relating to our qualified defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical and life insurance plans, the amount for unrecognized actuarial losses includes $316

million related to certain of our nonqualified and foreign benefit plans. The amount of unrecognized prior service cost related to those plans was not material. The prior service cost and actuarial loss included in accumulated other comprehensive loss and expected to be recognized in net periodic pension cost during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 is $66 million ($42 million net of tax) and $214 million ($137 million net of tax), respectively. The amount of unrecognized actuarial losses expected to be recognized in net periodic pension cost related to our nonqualified and foreign benefit plans is $24 million. The amount attributable to unrecognized prior service cost related to those plans was not material. No plan assets are expected to be returned to us during the fiscal year-ended December 31, 2007.

The following provides a reconciliation of benefit obligations, plan assets and funded status of therelated to our qualified defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical and life insurance plans:

 

  

Defined Benefit

Pension Plans

 

Retiree Medical and

Life Insurance Plans

   

Defined Benefit

Pension Plans

     Retiree Medical and
Life Insurance Plans
 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2005 2004   2006     2005     2006     2005 

Change in benefit obligations

                   

Benefit obligations at beginning of year

  $27,015  $24,364  $3,827  $3,810   $28,421     $27,015     $3,516     $3,827 

Service cost

   852   743   59   49    896      852      57      59 

Interest cost

   1,535   1,497   208   225    1,557      1,535      191      208 

Benefits paid

   (1,331)  (1,326)  (369)  (355)   (1,372)     (1,331)     (371)     (369)

Actuarial losses

   234   1,731   (61)  7 

Actuarial (gains) losses

   (1,034)     234      (166)     (61)

Amendments

   116   6   (252)  (2)   127      116      8      (252)

Divestitures

   (70)     —        (4)     —   

Participants’ contributions

   —     —     104   93    —        —        113      104 
             

Benefit obligations at end of year

  $28,421  $27,015  $3,516  $3,827   $28,525     $28,421     $3,344     $3,516 
             

Change in plan assets

                   

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year

  $22,139  $20,913  $1,480  $1,135   $23,432     $22,139     $1,521     $1,480 

Actual return on plan assets

   1,570   2,047   125   150    3,043      1,570      226      125 

Benefits paid

   (1,331)  (1,326)  (369)  (355)   (1,372)     (1,331)     (371)     (369)

Corporation’s contributions

   1,054   505   181   457 

Our contributions

   693      1,054      364      181 

Divestitures

   (61)     —        (5)     —   

Participants’ contributions

   —     —     104   93    —        —        113      104 
             

Fair value of plan assets at end of year

  $23,432  $22,139  $1,521  $1,480   $25,735     $23,432     $1,848     $1,521 
             

Unfunded status of the plans

  $(4,989) $(4,876) $(1,995) $(2,347)  $(2,790)    $(4,989)    $(1,496)    $(1,995)

Unrecognized net actuarial losses

   6,616   6,603   882   1,008    4,129      6,616      572      882 

Unrecognized prior service cost

   492   461   (164)  103    529      492      (133)     (164)
             

Net amount recognized

  $2,119  $2,188  $(1,277) $(1,236)  $1,868     $2,119     $(1,057)    $(1,277)
             

Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet

     

Prepaid assets

  $1,360  $1,030  $—    $—   

Accrued liabilities

   (2,097)  (1,660)  (1,277)  (1,236)

Amounts recognized in the balance sheet

              

Prepaid pension asset

  $235     $1,360     $—       $—   

Accrued postretirement benefit liabilities

   (3,025)     (2,097)     (1,496)     (1,277)

Intangible asset

   476   444   —     —      —        476      —        —   

Accumulated other comprehensive loss related to minimum pension liability

   2,380   2,374   —     —      —        2,380      —        —   
             

Accumulated other comprehensive loss related to:

              

Unrecognized net actuarial losses

   4,129      —        572      —   

Unrecognized prior service cost

   529      —        (133)     —   

Net amount recognized

  $2,119  $2,188  $(1,277) $(1,236)  $1,868     $2,119     $(1,057)    $(1,277)
             

The projected benefit obligations (PBO) for the Corporation’sour more significant defined benefit pension plans exceeded the fair value of the plans’ assets at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, as reflected in the table above.

At both December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Corporation’s consolidated2006, prior to our adoption of FAS 158, our balance sheet included pretax additional minimum pension liabilities of $2.4 billion$448 million related to certain of itsour defined benefit pension plans. This liability isAt December 31, 2005, the total amount was $2.4 billion. These liabilities were calculated on a plan-by-plan basis, and iswere required if the accumulated benefit obligation (ABO) of the plan exceedsexceeded the fair value of the plan assets and the plan’s accrued pension liabilities. All

previously recorded minimum pension liabilities were eliminated upon adoption of FAS 158. The ABO for all defined benefit pension plans was approximately $25 billion and $23 billion at December 31, 20052006 and 2004, respectively.2005.

For defined benefit pension plans in which the ABO was in excess of the fair value of the plans’ assets, the PBO, ABO and fair value of the plans’ assets were as follows:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2006    2005

Projected benefit obligation

  $17,969  $17,051  $3,983    $17,969

Accumulated benefit obligation

   15,852   14,792   3,912     15,852

Fair value of plan assets

   13,755   13,132   3,639     13,755

The net pension cost as determined by FAS 87,Employers’ Accounting for Pensions, and the net postretirement benefit cost as determined by FAS 106,Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, related to the Corporation’sour plans include the following components:

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003 

Defined benefit pension plans

    

Service cost

  $852  $743  $640 

Interest cost

   1,535   1,497   1,453 

Expected return on plan assets

   (1,740)  (1,698)  (1,748)

Amortization of prior service cost

   85   78   77 

Recognized net actuarial losses

   392   264   62 
             

Total net pension expense

  $1,124  $884  $484 
             

Retiree medical and life insurance plans

    

Service cost

  $59  $49  $40 

Interest cost

   208   225   211 

Expected return on plan assets

   (112)  (88)  (69)

Amortization of prior service cost

   14   8   1 

Recognized net actuarial losses

   49   60   49 
             

Total net postretirement expense

  $218  $254  $232 
             

In May 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) 106-2,Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. This FSP provides specific authoritative guidance on the accounting for the federal subsidy to eligible sponsors of retiree health care benefits provided under this law. Using this guidance, the Corporation estimated a projected reduction in its accumulated postretirement benefit obligation as of December 31, 2004 of $295 million from the effects of the new law. This obligation will be recognized over the remaining service lives of the employees eligible for the benefit. The impact of adoption of the FSP was a reduction of the FAS 106 postretirement expense for the year ended December 31, 2005 of approximately $35 million. The

postretirement expense computed under FAS 106 does not include the effects of U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards or income tax benefits.

    (In millions)  2006   2005   2004 

Defined benefit pension plans

      

Service cost

  $896   $852   $743 

Interest cost

   1,557    1,535    1,497 

Expected return on plan assets

   (1,930)   (1,740)   (1,698)

Recognized net actuarial losses

   335    392    264 

Amortization of prior service cost

   80    85    78 

Total net pension expense

  $938   $1,124   $884 

Retiree medical and life insurance plans

      

Service cost

  $57   $59   $49 

Interest cost

   191    208    225 

Expected return on plan assets

   (121)   (112)   (88)

Recognized net actuarial losses

   46    49    60 

Amortization of prior service cost

   (23)   14    8 

Total net postretirement expense

  $150   $218   $254 

The actuarial assumptions used to determine the benefit obligations at December 31, 20052006 and 20042005 related to the Corporation’sour defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans, as appropriate, are as follows:

 

  

Benefit Obligation

Assumptions

   

Benefit Obligation

Assumptions

 
  2005 2004   2006     2005 

Discount rates

  5.625% 5.75%  5.875%    5.625%

Rates of increase in future compensation levels

  5.000  5.50   5.000     5.000 

The decreaseincrease in the discount rate from December 31, 20042005 to December 31, 2005 resulted in an increase in the projected benefit obligations of the Corporation’s defined benefit pension plans at December 31, 2005 of approximately $465 million. The decrease in the rate of increase in future compensation levels from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 20052006 resulted in a decrease in the projected benefit obligations of the Corporation’s defined benefit pension plans at December 31, 20052006 of approximately $483$930 million.

The actuarial assumptions used to determine the net expense related to the Corporation’sour defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 2004 and 2003,2004, as appropriate, are as follows:

 

  Pension Cost Assumptions   Pension and Postretirement
Cost Assumptions
 
  2005 2004 2003   2006   2005   2004 

Discount rates

  5.75% 6.25% 6.75%  5.625%  5.75%  6.25%

Expected long-term rates of return on assets

  8.50  8.50  8.50   8.50     8.50   8.50 

Rates of increase in future compensation levels

  5.50  5.50  5.50   5.00     5.50   5.50 

The long-term rate of return assumption represents the expected average rate of earnings on the funds invested or to be invested to provide for the benefits included in the benefit obligations. That assumption is determined based on a number of factors, including historical market index returns, the anticipated long-term asset allocation of the plans, historical plan return data, plan expenses and the potential to outperform market index returns.

The medical trend rates used in measuring the postretirement benefit obligation were 11.0% in 2006 and 10.2% in 2005, and 11.0% in 2004, and were assumed to ultimately decrease to 5.0% by the year 2012.2013. An increase or decrease of one percentage point in the assumed medical trend rates would result in a change in the postretirement benefit obligation of approximately 5% and (4)%, respectively, at December 31, 2005,2006, and a change in the 20052006 postretirement service cost plus interest cost of approximately 4%5% and (4)%, respectively. The medical trend rate for 20062007 is 10.0%11.0%.

The asset allocations of the Corporation’sour plans at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, by asset category, were as follows:

 

  

Defined Benefit

Pension Plans

 

Retiree Medical and Life

Insurance Plans

   

Defined Benefit

Pension Plans

   

Retiree Medical and Life

Insurance Plans

 
  2005 2004 2005 2004   2006   2005   2006   2005 

Asset category:

             

Equity securities

  61% 64% 66% 58%  63%  61%  63%  66%

Debt securities

  34  32  33  41   31   34   35   33 

Other

  5  4  1  1   6   5   2   1 
               100%  100%  100%  100%
  100% 100% 100% 100%
             

Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company (LMIMCO), aour wholly-owned subsidiary, of the Corporation, has the fiduciary responsibility for making investment decisions related to the assets of the Corporation’sour defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical and life insurance plans. LMIMCO’s investment objectives for the assets of the defined benefit pension plans are to minimize the net present value of expected funding contributions and to meet or exceed the rate of return assumed for plan funding purposes over the long term. The investment objective for the assets of the retiree medical and life insurance plans is to meet or exceed the rate of return assumed for the plans for funding purposes over the long term. The nature and duration of benefit obligations, along with assumptions concerning asset class returns and return correlations, are considered when determining an appropriate asset allocation to achieve the investment objectives.

Investment policies and strategies governing the assets of the plans are designed to achieve investment objectives within prudent risk parameters. Risk management practices include the use of external investment managers and the maintenance of a portfolio diversified by asset class, investment approach and security holdings, and the maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet benefit obligations as they come due.

LMIMCO’s investment policies require that asset allocations of defined benefit pension plans be maintained within the following ranges:

 

Investment Groups

Asset Allocation
Ranges    Investment Groups
  Asset Allocation Ranges

EquityU.S. equity securities

  3530 – 70%60%

Non-U.S. equity securities

  010 – 25%30%

Debt securities

  1020 – 60%40%

Cash

  0 – 35%15%

Other

  0 – 15%40%

CurrentAt December 31, 2006, policies for the plans target an asset mix of 65% in total equity securities and 35% in debt and other securities.

Investment policies for all plans limit the use of alternative investments and derivatives. InvestmentsInvestment in each alternative asset classesclass or structuresstructure (e.g., real estate, private equity, hedge funds

and commodities) areis limited to 15%10% of plan assets. Investments in derivatives are subject to additional limitations and constraints, including a maximum notional value of futures of no more than 5% of plan assets.constraints.

Equity securities purchased by external investment managers and included in the assets of the defined benefit pension plans included our issued and outstanding common stock of the Corporation in the amounts of $7 million (less than 0.10% of total plan assets) and $11 million (less than 0.05% of total plan assets) and $16 million (less than 0.08% of total plan assets) at December 31, 20052006 and 2004,2005, respectively. Equity securities included in the assets of the retiree medical and life insurance plans included less than $1 million (less than 0.07%0.10% of total plan assets) of the Corporation’sour issued and outstanding common stock at both December 31, 20052006 and 2004.2005.

The CorporationWe generally refersrefer to U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and Internal Revenue Code rules in determining funding requirements for itsour pension plans. The CorporationIn 2006, we made a discretionary prepayments totaling $980prepayment of $594 million in 2005 to

the defined benefit pension plans’ trust and $130 million to our retiree medical plans which will reduce itsour cash funding requirements for 2006.2007 and 2008. In 2006,2007, we expect to make no contributions to the Corporation expects to contribute $100 million—$110 million to its defined benefit pension plans and $230 million—$240expect to contribute $175 million to itsthe retiree medical and life insurance plans, after giving consideration to the 20052006 prepayments.

The following benefit payments, which reflect expected future service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid:

 

(In millions)

  

Pension

Benefits

  

Other

Benefits

  

Pension

Benefits

    

Other

Benefits

2006

  $1,380  $260

2007

   1,430   260  $1,440    $260

2008

   1,490   270   1,490     260

2009

   1,550   270   1,540     270

2010

   1,610   270   1,600     270

Years 2011 – 2015

   9,190   1,340

2011

   1,660     270

Years 2012 – 2016

   9,530     1,260

The Corporation sponsorsAs noted previously, we also sponsor nonqualified defined benefit plans to provide benefits in excess of qualified plan limits. The aggregate liabilities for these plans at December 31, 20052006 were approximately $450$641 million. The expense associated with these plans totaled $59 million in 2006, $58 million in 2005 and $61 million in 2004 and $60 million in 2003. The Corporation2004. We also sponsorssponsor a small number of foreign benefit plans. The liabilities and expenses associated with these plans are not material to the Corporation’sour results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Note 1413 – Leases

TotalOur total rental expense under operating leases was $310 million, $324 million and $318 million for 2006, 2005 and $301 million for 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

Future minimum lease commitments at December 31, 20052006 for all operating leases that have a remaining term of more than one year were approximately $1.2$1.1 billion ($261 million in 2006,

$210288 million in 2007, $176$254 million in 2008, $141$211 million in 2009, $121$153 million in 2010, $118 million in 2011 and $248$121 million in later years). Certain major plant facilities and equipment are furnished by the U.S. Government under short-term or cancelable arrangements.

Note 1514 – Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

The Corporation or its subsidiariesWe are partiesa party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment. In the opinion of management and in-house counsel,We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The resultsCorporation as a whole. We cannot predict the outcome of legal proceedings however, cannot be predicted with certainty. These matters include the following items, all of which have been previously reported:

On June 17, 2002, the Corporation was served withMarch 27, 2006, we received a subpoena issued by a grand jury subpoena issued byin the United States District Court for the CentralNorthern District of California.Ohio. The subpoena soughtrequests documents related to our application for patents issued in the United States and the United Kingdom relating to an international sales agent engaged by Loral Corporation in connectiona missile detection and warning technology. We are cooperating with the sale of synthetic aperture radars to the Government of Korea in 1996. On December 20, 2005, the Corporation was advised that the grand jury’s investigation was closed.government’s investigation.

On February 6, 2004, the Corporationwe submitted a certified contract claim to the United States seekingrequesting contractual indemnity for remediation and litigation costs (past and future) associated with itsrelated to our former facility in Redlands, California. TheWe submitted the claim was submitted pursuant toconsistent with a claim sponsorship agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing), executed in 2001, in Boeing’s capacityrole as the prime contractor on the Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) program. The contract for the SRAM program, which formed a significant portion of the Corporation’sour work at the Redlands facility, containedhad special contractual indemnities from the U.S. Air Force, as authorized by Public Law 85-804. On August 31, 2004, the United States denied the claim. The Corporation’sOur appeal of that decision is pending beforewith the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

On August 28, 2003, the Department of Justice (the DoJ) filed complaints in partial intervention in two previously reported lawsuits filed under thequi tam provisions of the Civil False Claims Act in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,United States ex rel. Natural Resources Defense Council,,et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al, andUnited States ex rel. John D. Tillson v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., et al.al. The DepartmentDoJ alleges that the Corporationwe committed violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant by failing tonot properly handle, store, handling, storing,

and transporttransporting hazardous waste and that itwe violated the False Claims Act by purportedly misleading DoEDepartment of Energy officials and state regulators regardingabout the nature and extent of environmental noncompliance at the plant. The Corporation disputesWe dispute the allegations and isare defending against them.

On June 10, 2003, Lockheed Martin filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando against The Boeing Company (Boeing) and various individuals. On May 24, 2004, the Corporation filed an amended and supplemental complaint, which presently alleges that the defendants solicited, acquired and used Lockheed Martin’s proprietary information during the competition for awards under the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved

Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) programs and others in violation of Federal and state laws. On August 9, 2004, Boeing filed a six-count counterclaim. The counterclaim alleges tortious interference with business and contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices under Florida law, and false advertising under the Lanham Act, based on the Corporation’s purported disclosure to the U.S. Air Force and the government of Boeing’s possession and use of Lockheed Martin’s documents in the EELV and other competitions. In connection with the proposed formation of United Launch Alliance (see Note 2), Boeing and Lockheed Martin have agreed, simultaneous with the closing of the transaction, that they will immediately dismiss all claims against each other. On May 5, 2005, upon motions of Boeing and the Corporation, the U.S. District Court suspended all activity in the cases pending the outcome of the transaction.

On July 28, 2003, BAE SYSTEMS North America, Inc. and BAE SYSTEMS Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Corporation in the Chancery Court for New Castle County in Delaware, seeking damages of not less than $40 million. BAE sought indemnification from Lockheed Martin for BAE’s payment of a civil judgment entered in 2001 and related costs arising from a lawsuit involving one of the Aerospace Electronics Systems businesses purchased by BAE from the Corporation in November 2000. As a result of a settlement reached by the parties on November 18, 2005, the lawsuit was dismissed.

Nine lawsuits were filed against the Corporationus as a result of an incident in July 2003 at itsour aircraft parts manufacturing facility in Meridian, Mississippi, which resulted in the deaths of seven of its employees and the wounding of eight others. Six of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, and three lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi. The lawsuits allege various torts, including wrongful death, intentional infliction of injury, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress and, in the case of the federal actions, racial or gender discrimination. On July 14, 2005, the U.S. CourtThe claims of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversedall deceased and wounded employees have been settled or dismissed. Five cases remain pending in the District Court’s decision denying our motionCourt, each of which alleges race or gender discrimination, or wrongful termination. We have filed or plan to file motions for partial summary judgment in all of these cases. All trials are set to begin in theErica Willis Tanks v. Lockheed Martinlawsuit second quarter of 2007.

On June 10, 2003, we filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Orlando against Boeing and dismissedvarious individuals alleging that the wrongful deathdefendants acquired and used our proprietary information during the competition for awards under the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) programs and others in violation of Federal and state laws. On August 9, 2004, Boeing filed a six-count counterclaim. The counterclaim alleges tortious interference with business and contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices under Florida law, and false advertising under the Lanham Act, based on our disclosure to the U.S. Air Force and the government of Boeing’s possession and use of our documents in the EELV and other state tort claims. On August 26, 2005,competitions. In connection with the closing of the United Launch Alliance transaction (see Note 2), we and Boeing filed a joint motion, which the District Court dismissedapproved, to dismiss all claims and counterclaims related to the wrongful death and other state tort claims in the other five lawsuits pending before it. One of the lawsuits filed in state court,Fitzgerald v. Lockheed Martin, has settled.matter.

In 1995, Space Systems Loral filed a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Space Systems Loral allegesalleging that the Corporation’sour series A2100, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 7000 satellites infringe a patent relating to a method and apparatus to minimize attitude changes resulting from satellite thruster operations. The Corporation believes that its satellitesWe do not believe that our satellites infringe the patentpatent. On November 1, 2006, the case was dismissed, pursuant to a settlement agreement, with no liability to Lockheed Martin.

On October 19, 2005, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles alleging that we and is vigorously defendingBoeing violated Federal and California antitrust and other statutes by attempting and conspiring to eliminate competition in, and by monopolizing and attempting to monopolize, the case.government EELV launch vehicle market, including through the proposed formation of the ULA joint venture. SpaceX seeks monetary damages and to enjoin creation of the ULA joint venture. We and Boeing moved to dismiss. On February 17, 2006, the District Court dismissed the first amended complaint. Space X then filed a second amended complaint. On May 12, 2006, the District Court dismissed with prejudice SpaceX’s second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that SpaceX failed to allege a case or controversy because its inability to compete in the EELV market arises from SpaceX’s inability to offer a qualified launch vehicle and not from any actions by the defendants. SpaceX has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As described in the “Environmental Matters” discussion below, Lockheed Martin iswe are subject to federal and state requirements for protection of the environment, including those for discharge of hazardous materials and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, the Corporation iswe are a party to or has itshave property subject to various other lawsuits or proceedings involving environmental matters. Due in part to their complexity and pervasiveness, such requirements have resulted in the Corporation being involved with related legal proceedings, claimsmatters and remediation obligations.

The Corporation hasWe have been in litigation with certain residents of Redlands, California since 1997 before the California Superior Court for San Bernardino County regarding allegations of personal injury, property damage, and other tort claims on behalf of individuals and putative classes of individuals arising from itsour alleged contribution to regional groundwater contamination. In March and April of 2005,On July 11, 2006, the California Court of Appeal issued orders staying all trial and appellate proceedings pending further order ofAppeals dismissed the Court, including stayingplaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Proceedings in the trial of 14 claims that wascourt are currently stayed, but are expected to have commencedresume in May 2005 in the California Superior Court for San Bernardino County. Following an unsuccessful settlement conference, the trial proceedings remain stayed pending further review and action by the Court of Appeal.2007.

Environmental mattersThe Corporation isWe are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous waste and other environmental matters at several of itsour current or former facilities. At December 31, 20052006 and 2004,December 31, 2005, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $464$475 million and $420$464 million, respectively. Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which makes estimating liabilities more judgmental due to, for example, changing remediation technologies, assessments of the extent of contamination and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. TheseWe consider these factors are considered in estimates of the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation actions. TheWe do not

discount the recorded liabilities, have not been discounted, as the timing of cash payments is not fixed or cannot be reliably determined.

About 60% of the liability We have recorded assets totaling $386 million and $353 million at December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, relates to sitesrespectively, for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of future recovery in Redlands, Burbankthe pricing of our products and Glendale, California, and in Great Neck, New York, mainlyservices for remediation of soil and groundwater contamination. The remainder of the liability related to other properties (including current operating facilities and certain facilities operated in prior years) for which the Corporation’s obligation is probable and the financial exposure can be estimated. U.S. Government businesses.

In cases where a date to complete activities at a particular environmental site cannot be estimated by reference to agreements or otherwise, the Corporation projectswe project costs over an appropriate time frame not to exceed 20 years. TheWe cannot reasonably determine the extent of the Corporation’sour financial exposure cannot in all cases be reasonably determined at this time. The CorporationWe also isare pursuing claims for contribution to site cleanup costs against other potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including the U.S. Government.

At Redlands, California, in response to administrative orders issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Corporation iswe are investigating the impact and potential remediation of regional groundwater contamination by perchlorates and chlorinated solvents and hashave submitted a plan approved by the Regional Board to maintain public water supplies with respect to chlorinated solvents during the investigation. Following further study of perchlorate health effects by both the National Academy of Sciences and by the U.S. EPA,Environmental Protection Agency, California reaffirmed a six ppbparts per billion (ppb) public health goal for perchlorates in March 2005. Although the six ppb public health goal is not a legally enforceable drinking water standard, the Corporation haswe have developed and isare in the process of implementing a preliminary remediation plan to meet the six ppb goal in anticipation that California may promulgateinstitute an enforceable standard at that level.

The CorporationWe also isare conducting remediation activities pursuant tounder various consent decrees and orders relating to soil or groundwater contamination at certain sites of former operations, including sites in Burbank and Glendale, California and Great Neck, New York. Under the Burbank and Glendale orders, the Corporation, among other things, iswe are obligated to construct and fund the operations of soil and groundwater treatment facilities through 2018 and 2012, respectively.respectively, among other things. Responsibility for the long-term operation of the Burbank and Glendale facilities has been assumed by the respectivethose localities. In addition, under an agreement related to the Burbank and Glendale remediation activities, the U.S. Government reimburses the Corporationus in an amount equal to approximately 50% of expenditures for certain remediation activities in its capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Letters of credit and other mattersThe Corporation hasWe have entered into standby letter of credit agreements, surety bonds and other arrangements with financial institutions and other third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and/or the guarantee of future performance on certain of its contracts. The Corporation hadWe have total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and other arrangements aggregating approximately $3.1$3.4 billion at December 31, 2005 and $3.0 billion at December 31, 2004.2006. Letters of credit and surety bonds are available for draw down in the event of our nonperformance.

Under the Corporation’s nonperformance.agreement to sell LKEI and ILS (see Note 2), we will continue to be responsible to refund customer advances to certain customers if launch services are not provided and ILS does not refund the advance. The amount we could be required to pay is expected to increase over time due to the payment of additional advances by the customers to ILS related to the specific launches we have guaranteed, and will be reduced by the occurrence of those launches. At December 31, 2006, the total amount that could be payable under the guarantees, approximating the total contract value of the guaranteed launches, was $344 million. That amount may be partially mitigated by approximately $70 million of cash we retained that, absent any requirements to make payments under the guarantees, will be paid to the buyer over time as the launches occur. Our balance sheet at December 31, 2006 included current and noncurrent assets relating to LKEI and ILS totaling $265 million, and current and noncurrent liabilities totaling $335 million, both of which will be reduced as the launch services are provided. The assets relate primarily to advances we have made to Khrunichev for future launches, and the liabilities relate primarily to advances we have received from customers for future launches. Any potential earnings impact resulting from our inability to realize the assets we have recorded related to LKEI and ILS would be partially mitigated by our not recognizing the $60 million deferred net gain on the transaction.

In connection with the formation of ULA (see Note 2), both we and Boeing have each committed to providing up to $25 million in additional capital contributions and $200 million in other financial support to ULA, as required. The non-capital financial support will be made in the form of a revolving credit facility between us and ULA or guarantees of ULA financing with third parties, in either case, to the extent necessary for ULA to meet its working capital needs. We have agreed to provide this support for at least five years, and would expect to fund our requirements with cash on hand. To satisfy our non-capital financial support commitment, we and Boeing put into place at closing a revolving credit agreement with ULA. At December 31, 2006, we had made $3 million in payments under our capital contribution commitment, and no amounts had been drawn on the revolving credit agreement. In addition, both we and Boeing have cross-indemnified ULA related to certain financial support arrangements (e.g., letters of credit, surety bonds or foreign exchange contracts provided by either party) and guarantees by us and Boeing of the performance and financial obligations of ULA under certain launch service

contracts. We believe ULA will be able to fully perform its obligations and that it will not be necessary to make payments under the cross-indemnities.

Note 1615 – Information on Business Segments

The Corporation operatesWe operate in five business segments: Aeronautics, Electronic Systems, Space Systems, Information Technology & Global Services (IT&GS) and Integrated Systems & Solutions (IS&S), and. The name of our IT&GS segment, formerly known as Information & Technology Services, (I&TS).was changed to better reflect the segment’s capabilities and service offerings following the growth experienced by our information technology and business process services businesses and through recent acquisitions. The business segments have been organized based on the nature of the products and services offered.they offer. In the following tables of financial data, the total of the operating results of these business segments is reconciled, as appropriate, to the corresponding consolidated amount. With respect to the caption “Operating profit,” the reconciling item “Unallocated Corporate expense, net” includes the FAS/CAS pension adjustment (see discussion below), earnings and losses from equity investments, interest income, costs for certain stock-based compensation programs (including stock-based compensation costs for stock options and restricted stock as discussed in Note 11, the effects of items not considered part of management’s evaluation of segment operating performance, Corporate costs not allocated to the operating segments and other miscellaneous Corporate activities. For financial data other than “Operating profit” where amounts are reconciled to consolidated totals, all activities other than those pertaining to the principle business segments are included in “Corporate activities.”

The FAS/CAS pension adjustment represents the difference between pension expense or income calculated for financial reporting purposes under GAAP in accordance with FAS 87, and pension costs calculated and funded in accordance with U.S. Government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), which are reflected in theour business segment results. CAS is a major factor in determining our pension funding requirements, for the Corporation, and governs the extent of allocability and recoverability of pension costs on government contracts. The CAS expense is recovered through the pricing of the Corporation’sour products and services on U.S. Government contracts, and therefore recognized in segment net sales. The results of operations of the Corporation’sour segments only include pension expense as determined and funded in accordance with CAS rules.

Transactions between segments are generally negotiated and accounted for under terms and conditions similar to other government and commercial contracts; however, these intercompany transactions are eliminated in consolidation and for purposes of the presentation of “Net sales” in the related table that follows. Other accounting policies of the business segments are the same as those described in Note 1 – Significant Accounting Policies.1.

Following is a brief description of the activities of the principal business segments:

 

 

Aeronautics - Engaged in the design, research and development, systems integration, production, sustainment, support and upgrade of advanced military aircraft, air vehicles and related technologies. Its customers include various government agencies and the military services of the United States and allied countries throughoutaround the world. Major products and programs include design, development and production of the 5TH Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter andFighter; the F-22 air dominance attack and multi-mission combat aircraft; the F-16 multi-role fighter; the C-130J tactical transport aircraft; the C-5 strategic airlift aircraft;airlifter modernization; and support for the F-117 stealth fighter, P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, S-3 multi-mission aircraft and special mission andU-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft (e.g., P-3 Orion, S-3 Viking and U-2). The Corporationaircraft. We also producesproduce major components for the F-2 fighter for Japan and isare a co-developer of the C-27J tactical transport aircraft and the T-50 advanced jet trainer.trainer for South Korea. Our Skunk Works advanced development organization is focused on next generation innovative systems solutions using rapid prototyping and advanced technologies.

 

Electronic Systems – Engaged in the design, research, development, integration, production and sustainment of high performance systems for undersea, shipboard, land and airborne applications. Major product lines include: missiles and fire control systems; air and theater missile defense systems; surface ship and submarine combat systems; anti-submarine and undersea warfare systems; avionics and ground combat vehicle integration; systems integration and program management for fixed and rotary-wing aircraft systems; radars; platform integration systems; homeland security systems; surveillance and reconnaissance systems; advanced aviation management solutions; security and information technology solutions; and simulation and training systems.

 

Space Systems – Engaged in the design, research, development, engineering and production of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems and launch services.space transportation systems. The Satellite product line includes both government and commercial satellites. Strategic & Defensive Missile Systems include airborne andincludes missile defense technologies and systems and fleet ballistic missiles. Launch Services include launches on Atlas, Proton,Space Transportation Systems includes the next generation human space flight system known as the Orion crew exploration vehicle and TitanAres launch vehicles, and also includesystem, as well as the Space Shuttle’s external tank.tank and commercial

launch services using the Atlas V launch vehicle. Through ownership interests in two joint ventures, Space Transportation Systems also includes Space Shuttle processing activities and expendable launch services for the U.S. Government.

Information Technology & Global Services – Engaged in a wide array of information technology (IT), IT-related, and other technology services to federal agencies and other customers. Major product lines include: IT integration and management; enterprise solutions; application development and maintenance; business processing management; consulting on strategic programs for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and civil government agencies; logistics, mission operations and sustaining engineering for military, homeland security, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and civilian systems; mission readiness, peacemaking and nation building services for DoD, Department of State, allied governments and international agencies; and research, development, engineering and science in support of nuclear weapons stewardship and naval reactor programs.

 

Integrated Systems & Solutions – Engaged in the design, research, development, integration and management of net-centric solutions supporting the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) activities of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD),DoD, intelligence agencies, other federal agencies and allied countries. IS&S provides technology, full life-cycle support and highly specialized talent in the areas of software and systems engineering, including expertise in complex solution areas centered around space, air and ground systems. IS&S serves as the Corporation’sour focal point for customers with joint and net-centric operations requiring overarching architectures, horizontal systems integration, software development, and inter-connected capabilities for the gathering, processing, storage and delivery of on-demand information for mission management, modeling and simulation,

and large-scale systems integration. In that role, IS&S operates the Center for Innovation, a state-of-the-art facility for modeling and simulation.

Information & Technology Services – Engaged in a wide array of information technology (IT), IT-related, and other technology services to federal agencies and other customers. Major product lines include: IT integration, and management; enterprise solutions; application development, maintenance,is working to apply our capabilities to the corresponding needs of a broader base of customers such as health care information users. IS&S operates the Center for Innovation, a state-of-the-art facility for modeling and consulting for strategic programs for the DoD and civil government agencies; aircraft and engine maintenance and modification services; management, operation, maintenance, training and logistics support for military, homeland security and civilian systems; launch, mission and analysis services for military, classified and commercial satellites; engineering, science and information services for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and research, development, engineering and science in support of nuclear weapons stewardship and naval reactor programs.simulation. IS&S also manages Savi Technology, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired during 2006 that provides radio frequency identification (RFID) solutions.

Selected Financial Data by Business Segment

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003   2006     2005     2004 

Net sales

              

Aeronautics

  $11,672  $11,785  $10,206   $11,401     $11,672     $11,785 

Electronic Systems

   10,580   9,729   8,996    11,304      10,580      9,729 

Space Systems

   6,820   6,359   6,024    7,923      6,820      6,359 

Information Technology & Global Services

   4,605      4,010      3,802 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   4,131   3,851   3,422    4,387      4,131      3,851 

Information & Technology Services

   4,010   3,802   3,176 
          
  $37,213  $35,526  $31,824   $39,620     $37,213     $35,526 
          

Operating profit(a)

              

Aeronautics

  $994  $899  $690   $1,170     $994     $899 

Electronic Systems

   1,113   969   858    1,297      1,113      969 

Space Systems

   609   489   403    746      609      489 

Information Technology & Global Services

   430      351      285 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   365   334   291    405      365      334 

Information & Technology Services

   351   285   226 
          

Total business segments

   3,432   2,976   2,468    4,048      3,432      2,976 

Net unallocated Corporate expense(b)

   (446)  (887)  (449)   (95)     (446)     (887)
          
  $2,986  $2,089  $2,019   $3,953     $2,986     $2,089 
          

Intersegment revenue

              

Aeronautics

  $99  $77  $43   $114     $99     $77 

Electronic Systems

   655   607   573    726      655      607 

Space Systems

   179   217   140    140      179      217 

Information Technology & Global Services

   894      914      765 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   632   580   491    631      632      580 

Information & Technology Services

   914   765   797 
            $2,505     $2,479     $2,246 
  $2,479  $2,246  $2,044 
          

Depreciation and amortization of property, plant and equipment

    

Depreciation and amortization of plant and equipment

          

Aeronautics

  $130  $105  $89   $147     $130     $105 

Electronic Systems

   182   162   160    195      182      162 

Space Systems

   134   134   120    132      134      134 

Information Technology & Global Services

   14      14      40 

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   44   28   29    53      44      28 

Information & Technology Services

   14   40   42 
          

Total business segments

   504   469   440    541      504      469 

Corporate activities

   51   42   40    59      51      42 
            $600     $555     $511 
  $555  $511  $480 
          

Selected Financial Data by Business Segment (continued)

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003  2006    2005    2004

Amortization of purchased intangibles

                

Aeronautics

  $50  $50  $50  $50    $50    $50

Electronic Systems

   48   47   47   51     48     47

Space Systems

   8   8   8   9     8     8

Information Technology & Global Services

   24     18     14

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   15   14   14   18     15     14

Information & Technology Services

   18   14   8
         

Total business segments

   139   133   127   152     139     133

Corporate activities

   11   12   2   12     11     12
         
  $150  $145  $129  $164    $150    $145
         

Expenditures for property, plant and equipment

                

Aeronautics

  $190  $187  $210  $215    $190    $187

Electronic Systems

   333   248   204   341     333     248

Space Systems

   192   161   143   226     192     161

Information Technology & Global Services

   17     31     44

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   74   60   35   56     74     60

Information & Technology Services

   31   44   41
         

Total business segments

   820   700   633   855     820     700

Corporate activities

   45   69   54   38     45     69
         
  $865  $769  $687  $893    $865    $769
         

Assets(c)

                

Aeronautics

  $2,503  $2,579  $3,061  $2,529    $2,503    $2,579

Electronic Systems

   9,345   8,853   8,740   9,172     9,345     8,853

Space Systems

   3,110   3,018   2,986   2,913     3,110     3,018

Information Technology & Global Services

   4,158     2,885     2,170

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   2,147   2,138   2,223   2,550     2,147     2,138

Information & Technology Services

   2,885   2,170   2,342
         

Total business segments

   19,990   18,758   19,352   21,322     19,990     18,758

Corporate activities(d)

   7,754   6,796   6,823   6,909     7,754     6,796
         
  $27,744  $25,554  $26,175  $28,231    $27,744    $25,554
         

Goodwill

                

Aeronautics

  $—    $—    $—    $—      $—      $—  

Electronic Systems

   5,196   5,128   5,075   5,188     5,196     5,128

Space Systems

   509   453   453   456     509     453

Information Technology & Global Services

   2,009     1,389     994

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   1,353   1,317   1,357   1,597     1,353     1,317

Information & Technology Services

   1,389   994   994
           $9,250    $8,447    $7,892
  $8,447  $7,892  $7,879             

Customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred

          

Aeronautics

  $1,798    $1,488    $1,526

Electronic Systems

   1,476     1,549     1,221

Space Systems

   394     1,128     1,167

Information Technology & Global Services

   93     81     13

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   95     85     101
           $3,856    $4,331    $4,028

Selected Financial Data by Business Segment (continued)

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003

Customer advances and amounts in excess of costs incurred

      

Aeronautics

  $1,488  $1,526  $2,051

Electronic Systems

   1,549   1,221   1,049

Space Systems

   1,128   1,167   1,042

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   85   101   98

Information & Technology Services

   81   13   16
            
  $4,331  $4,028  $4,256
            

 

(a)Operating profit included equity in net earnings (losses) of equity investees as follows:

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003  2006    2005    2004

Electronic Systems

  $4  $5  $ —    $3    $4    $5

Space Systems

   72   71   51   78     72     71

Information & Technology Services

   35   16   15
         

Information Technology & Global Services

   49     35     16

Total business segments

   111   92   66   130     111     92

Corporate activities

   (3)  (25)  41   —       (3)     (25)
           $130    $108    $67
  $108  $67  $107
         

 

(b)Net unallocated Corporate expense includes the following:

 

(In millions)

  2005 2004 2003   2006  2005  2004

FAS/CAS pension adjustment

  $(626) $(595) $(300)  $(275)  $(626)  $(595)

Items not considered in segment operating performance

   173   (215)  (153)   214   173   (215)

Stock-based compensation

   (111)   —     —  

Other

   7   (77)  4    77   7   (77)
            $(95)  $(446)  $(887)
  $(446) $(887) $(449)
          

For information regarding the items not considered in management’s evaluation of segment operating performance, see Notes 2, 7, 8 9, 10 and 179 to the consolidated financial statements.

 

(c)The Corporation hasWe have no significant long-lived assets located in foreign countries.

 

(d)Assets primarily include cash, investments, deferred income taxes and the prepaid pension asset.

Net Sales by Customer Category

 

(In millions)

  2005  2004  2003  2006  2005  2004

U.S. Government

            

Aeronautics

  $8,883  $7,876  $6,613  $8,911  $8,883  $7,876

Electronic Systems

   8,504   7,909   7,363   8,651   8,504   7,909

Space Systems

   6,409   5,180   4,928   7,185   6,409   5,180

Information Technology & Global Services

   4,237   3,816   3,589

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   4,016   3,742   3,252   4,269   4,016   3,742

Information & Technology Services

   3,816   3,589   2,799
         
  $31,628  $28,296  $24,955  $33,253  $31,628  $28,296
         

Foreign governments(a) (b)

            

Aeronautics

  $2,770  $3,896  $3,580  $2,477  $2,770  $3,896

Electronic Systems

   1,917   1,731   1,526   2,384   1,917   1,731

Space Systems

   —     4   —     11   —     4

Information Technology & Global Services

   118   90   94

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   60   29   16   55   60   29

Information & Technology Services

   90   94   79
           $5,045  $4,837  $5,754
  $4,837  $5,754  $5,201
         

Commercial(b)

      

Commercial and Other(b)

      

Aeronautics

  $19  $13  $13  $13  $19  $13

Electronic Systems

   159   89   107   269   159   89

Space Systems

   411   1,175   1,096   727   411   1,175

Information Technology & Global Services

   250   104   119

Integrated Systems & Solutions

   55   80   154   63   55   80

Information & Technology Services

   104   119   298
           $1,322  $748  $1,476
  $748  $1,476  $1,668  $39,620  $37,213  $35,526
         
  $37,213  $35,526  $31,824
         

(a)Sales made to foreign governments through the U.S. Government, or “foreign military sales,” are included in the foreign governments category above.category.

(b)International sales, including export sales reflected in the foreign governments and commercial categories, above, were approximately$5.6 billion, $5.1 billion and $6.0 billion in 2006, 2005 and $5.6 billion in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

Note 1716 – Summary of Quarterly Information (Unaudited)

 

  2006 Quarters
(In millions, except per share data)  First (b)  Second (c)  Third (d)  Fourth (e)

Net sales

  $9,214  $9,961  $9,605  $10,840

Operating profit

   971   943   905   1,134

Net earnings

   591   580   629   729

Basic earnings per share

   1.36   1.35   1.48   1.72

Diluted earnings per share(a)

   1.34   1.34   1.46   1.68
  2005 Quarters  2005 Quarters

(In millions, except per share data)

  First(a)  Second(b)  Third  Fourth(c)  First(f)  Second(g)  Third  Fourth(h)

Net sales

  $8,488  $9,295  $9,201  $10,229  $8,488  $9,295  $9,201  $10,229

Operating profit

   630   764   706   886   630   764   706   886

Net earnings

   369   461   427   568   369   461   427   568

Basic earnings per share

   0.84   1.03   0.97   1.31   0.84   1.03   0.97   1.31

Diluted earnings per share

   0.83   1.02   0.96   1.29   0.83   1.02   0.96   1.29
  2004 Quarters

(In millions, except per share data)

  First  Second  Third  Fourth(d)

Net sales

  $8,347  $8,776  $8,438  $9,965

Operating profit

   536   544   561   448

Net earnings

   291   296   307   372

Basic earnings per share

   0.66   0.67   0.69   0.84

Diluted earnings per share

   0.65   0.66   0.69   0.83

 

(a)The sum of the quarterly earnings per share amounts do not equal the diluted earnings per share amount included on statement of earnings, primarily due to the dilutive effects of our convertible debentures (see Note 3) and the timing of share repurchases during 2006.
(b)Net earnings for the first quarter of 2006 included a gain related to the sale of 21 million of our Inmarsat shares which increased net earnings by $83 million ($0.19 per share) and a gain related to the sale of our interest in Space Imaging which increased net earnings by $15 million ($0.03 per share).
(c)Net earnings for the second quarter of 2006 included a gain related to the sale of certain surplus land which increased net earnings by $13 million ($0.03 per share).
(d)Net earnings for the third quarter of 2006 included a gain related to the sale of certain surplus land which increased net earnings by $20 million ($0.05 per share), expenses associated with the debt exchange which decreased net earnings by $11 million ($0.03 per share), and a tax benefit related to claims filed for additional ETI tax benefits for sales in previous years which increased net earnings by $62 million ($0.14 per share).
(e)Net earnings for the fourth quarter of 2006 included earnings from the reversal of transaction-related reserves recorded in connection with our sale of the Aerospace Electronics Systems business which increased net earnings by $19 million ($0.04 per share).
(f)Net earnings for the first quarter of 2005 included the following items: a gain related to the sale of our 25% interest in Intelsat, Ltd. which increased net earnings by $31 million ($0.07 per share); and a charge related to impairment in the value of a single telecommunications satellite operated by one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries which reduced net earnings by $19 million ($0.04 per share).

(b)(g)Net earnings for the second quarter of 2005 included the following items: recognition of a deferred gain related to the June 2005 initial public offering of shares of Inmarsat which increased net earnings by $27 million ($0.06 per share).

(c)(h)Net earnings for the fourth quarter of 2005 included the following items: a gain related to the sale of Inmarsat shares in a private transaction which increased net earnings by $55 million ($0.13 per share); and a gain related to the sale of the Corporation’sour interest in NeuStar which increased net earnings by $19 million ($0.04 per share).

 

(d)Net earnings for the fourth quarter of 2004 included the following items: a charge related to Pit 9 litigation which decreased net earnings by $117 million ($0.26 per share); a charge related to the early repayment of debt which decreased net earnings by $100 million ($0.22 per share); the closure of an IRS examination which increased net earnings by $144 million ($0.32 per share); a gain on the sale of interest in New Skies Satellites, N.V. which increased net earnings by $59 million ($0.13 per share); and a gain on the sale of COMSAT General business which increased net earnings by $4 million ($0.01 per share).

ITEM 9.ITEM 9.CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.

 

ITEM 9A.CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under the caption “Controls and Procedures” on page 7455 of this Form 10-K.

ITEM 9B.    OTHEROTHER INFORMATION

We believe that all information that was required to be disclosed in a report on Form 8-K during the fourth quarter of 20052006 was reported on a Form 8-K during that period.

In lieu of filing a separate Form 8-K to report the information described below, the Corporation haswe have elected to include the following information in itsthis Form 10-K as permitted by applicable SEC rules.

In accordance with its charter, the Management Development and Compensation Committee and the Stock Option Subcommittee (together, the “Committee”) of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Board of Directors reviews and approves Corporate goals and objectives relevant to the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, evaluates the Chief Executive Officer’s performance and recommends to the independent members of the Board the compensation level based on that evaluation. The Committee also makes recommendations to the independent members ofOn February 22, 2007, the Board of Directors concerning the compensationamended Section 1.04 of the Corporation’s other executive officers. Bylaws to permit electronic delivery of proxy materials. A copy of the Bylaws, as amended and restated effective February 22, 2007, is filed as Exhibit 3.2 to this report.

On February 23, 2006, the Committee established the key performance objectives that will be used to evaluate corporate and executive officer performance for purposes of determining incentive compensation awards under the Lockheed Martin Management Incentive Compensation Plan (“MICP”) for 2006. The Committee generally reviews and makes annual incentive compensation awards in the first quarter following completion of each year. Each2007, we entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Michael F. Camardo, who previously served as Executive Vice President, Information Technology & Global Services. A copy of the executive officersProfessional Services Agreement is assigned a targeted percentage (ranging from 65 percentfiled as Exhibit 10.33 to 125 percent) of base salary determined by the level of importance and responsibility of the participant’s position in the Corporation. The amount of incentive compensation generated by the target percentage is adjusted upwards or downwards after assessment by the Committee of corporate performance and the individual’s contribution to that performance. Following adjustment for corporate and individual performance ratings, the bonuses payable under the MICP for the executive officers can range from 0 percent to 195 percent of the target bonus amount, or higher at the discretion of the Committee. In determining the adjustment for individual performance, the Committee also considers subjective criteria, such as the accomplishment of individual goals and contributions to operational performance, as well as the individual’s implementation of and adherence to the Corporation’s policy on ethics and standards of conduct, customer satisfaction, teamwork, and retention and development of key personnel.

For 2006, the Committee plans to evaluate corporate performance, in part, by comparison of 2006 actual results to selected financial performance measures from the Corporation’s 2006 long-range plan. In evaluating 2006 MICP awards, the Committee plans to consider the following measures of financial performance: orders; sales; operating earnings before income taxes; operating margin; earnings per share; cash from operations; capital expenditures; and return on invested capital. Other objectives that the Committee plans to evaluate to determine MICP awards for 2006 include: the Corporation’s mission success; competitive win rates; achievement of focus program objectives; ability to protect funding for existing programs; realization of available award fees; achievement of enterprise objectives and savings; reduction in the number of programs characterized internally as red or watch programs; achievement of ethics awareness and compliance training objectives; achievement of corporate diversity maturity model objectives; and achievement of hiring targets. In addition, the Committee plans to

consider the following measures: consummation of the ULA joint venture; the Corporation’s success in continuing to expand into adjacent market opportunities; the Corporation’s success in deploying cash to increase shareholder value; the Corporation’s ability to increase the velocity of executing acquisitions; the ability to drive productivity and continuous improvement through the Corporation’s LM21 program; the ability of management to institutionalize full spectrum leadership imperatives in talent development and performance assessments; the ability to enhance and execute an investor relations strategy to further differentiate the Corporation from its competitors; the ability to reduce escalating medical costs through implementation of an employee health wellness strategy; and the Corporation’s success in expanding business continuity planning to include global pandemic disease threats. Selection of and weighting of the various criteria in determining MICP awards is within the Committee’s discretion and may vary from year to year. The Committee retains discretion to determine the amount of actual awards, if any.this report.

PART III

ITEM 10.    DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

ITEM 10.DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

The information concerning directors required by Item 401 of Regulation S-K is included under the caption “Election of Directors” in our definitive Proxy Statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A (the 20062007 Proxy Statement), and that information is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K. Information concerning executive officers required by Item 401 of Regulation S-K is located under Part I, Item 4(a) of this Form 10-K. The information required by Item 405 of Regulation S-K concerning compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act is included under the caption “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in our 20062007 Proxy Statement, and that information is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K. The information required by Items 407(c)(3), (d)(4) and (d)(5) of Regulation S-K is included under the captions “Corporate Governance – Stockholder Nominees” and “Committees of the Board of Directors – Audit Committee” in our 2007 Proxy Statement, and that information is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

We have had a written code of ethics in place since our formation in 1995. Our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applies to all our employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer, and principal accounting officer and controller, and to members of our Board of Directors. A copy of our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct is available on our investor relations website:www.lockheedmartin.com/investor.investor. Printed copies of our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct may be obtained, without charge, by contacting Investor Relations, Lockheed Martin Corporation, 6801 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817. We are required to disclose any change to, or waiver from, our code of ethics for our senior financial officers. We intend to use our website as a method of disseminating this disclosure as permitted by applicable SEC rules.

ITEM 11.EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ITEM 11.    EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The information required by this Item  11402 of Regulation S-K is included in the text and tables under the captioncaptions “Executive Compensation” and “Directors’ Compensation” in the 20062007 Proxy Statement and that information except for the information required by Item 402(k) and 402(l) of Regulation S-K, is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K. The information required by Items 407(e)(4) and (e)(5) of Regulation S-K is included under the captions “Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” and “Executive Compensation – Compensation Committee Report” in our 2007 Proxy Statement, and that information is furnished by incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K.

ITEM 12.SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM 12.    SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

                     AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.

The information required by this Item 12 is included under the heading “Securities Owned by Directors, Nominees and Named Executive Officers”Officers,” “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners,” and “Equity Compensation Plan Information” in the 20062007 Proxy Statement, and that information is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

ITEM 13.    CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR

ITEM 13.CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
                     INDEPENDENCE

The information required by Item 404 and 407(a) of Regulation S-K concerning certain relationships and related transactions is included under the caption “Certain“Corporate Governance – Related Person Transaction Policy,” “Corporate Governance – Certain Relationships and Related Transactions”Transactions of Directors, Executive Officers and 5 Percent Stockholders,” and “Corporate Governance – Director Independence” in our 20062007 Proxy Statement, and that information is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

ITEM 14.PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

ITEM 14.    PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The information required by this Item is included under the caption “Ratification of Appointment of Independent Auditors – Fees Paid to Independent Auditors” in the 20062007 Proxy Statement, and that information is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

PART IV

 

ITEM 15.EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES

(a)(1) List of Financial Statements filed as part of the Form 10-K.

The following financial statements of Lockheed Martin Corporation and consolidated subsidiaries are included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K at the page numbers referenced below:

 

   Page

Consolidated Statement of Earnings – Years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 20032004

  8059

Consolidated Balance Sheet – At December 31, 20052006 and 20042005

  8160

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows – Years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 20032004

  8261

Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Equity – Years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004, and 20032004

  8362

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements – December 31, 20052006

  8463

The report of Lockheed Martin’sour independent registered public accounting firm with respect to internal control over financial reporting and their report on the above-referenced financial statements appear on pages 7757 through 7958 of this Form 10-K. TheTheir consent of Lockheed Martin’s independent registered public accounting firm appears as Exhibit 23 of this Form 10-K.

(2) List of Financial Statement Schedules filed as part of this Form 10-K.

All schedules have been omitted because they are not applicable, not required, or the information has been otherwise supplied in the financial statements or notes to the financial statementsstatements.

(3) Exhibits

 

3.1  Charter of Lockheed Martin Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of theto Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A8-K filed with the SEC on July 22, 2003)April 27, 2006).
3.2  Bylaws of Lockheed Martin Corporation as last amended and restated effective October 28, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 3, 2005).February 22, 2007.
4.1  Indenture dated May 16, 1996, between the Corporation, Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems, Inc., and First Trust of Illinois, National Association as Trustee (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 16,20, 1996).
4.2  Indenture dated as of August 13, 2003, between Lockheed Martin Corporation and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, for the $1,000,000,000 aggregate principal amount outstanding of Floating Rate Convertible Senior Debentures due August 13, 2033 between Lockheed Martin Corporation and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, dated as of August 13, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.4 ofto Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-108333) filed with the SEC on August 28, 2003).
4.3  First Supplemental Indenture between Lockheed Martin Corporation and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, dated December 6, 2004, for the $1,000,000,000 aggregate principal amount outstanding of Floating Rate Convertible Senior Debentures due August 13, 2033 between Lockheed Martin Corporation and The Bank of New York, as Trustee, dated December 6, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 8, 2004).

4.4Indenture dated as of August 30, 2006 for 6.15% Notes due 2036 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on October 27, 2006).
  See also Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2.
  No other instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt are filed since the total amount of securities authorized under any such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Corporation on a consolidated basis. The Corporation agrees to furnish a copy of such instruments to the SEC upon request.

10.1  Lockheed Martin Corporation Directors Deferred Stock Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002).
10.2  Lockheed Martin Corporation Directors Deferred Compensation Plan as amended and restated effective October 27, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 3, 2005)2, 2006).
10.3  Resolutions relating to Lockheed Martin Corporation Financial Counseling Program and personal liability and accidental death and dismemberment benefits for officers and company presidents, (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(g) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997).
10.4  Martin Marietta Corporation Postretirement Death Benefit Plan for Senior Executives, as amended January 1, 1995 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645) filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995), and as further amended September 26, 1996 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ooo) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996).
10.5  Martin Marietta Corporation Amended Omnibus Securities Award Plan, as amended March 25, 1993 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645) filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995).
10.6  Martin Marietta Corporation Directors’ Life Insurance Program (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.17 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645) filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995).
10.7  Lockheed Martin Supplementary Pension Plan for Employees of Transferred GE Operations, effective January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005).
10.8  Martin Marietta Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Selected Officers, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(v) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997).

10.9Incentive Retirement Benefit Plan for Certain Executives of Lockheed Corporation, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645) filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995).
10.10  Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan for Certain Transferred Employees of Lockheed Martin Corporation, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005).
10.1110.10  Lockheed Martin Corporation Supplemental Savings Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005).
10.1210.11  Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors of Lockheed Corporation, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3010.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration StatementCurrent Report on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645)8-K filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995)November 3, 2005).
10.1310.12  Lockheed Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan Trust Agreement, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.34 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645) filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995).
10.1410.13  Trust Agreement, dated December 22, 1994, between Lockheed Corporation and J.P. Morgan California with respect to certain employee benefit plans of Lockheed Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.35 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-57645) filed with the SEC on February 9, 1995).
10.1510.14  Lockheed Martin Corporation Directors Charitable Award Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.19 to Lockheed Martinthe Corporation’s AnnualCurrent Report on Form 10-K for8-K filed with the year endedSEC on December 31, 2003)8, 2006).
10.1610.15  Amendment to Terms of Outstanding Stock Option Relating to Exercise Period for Employees of Divested Business (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(dd) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999).
10.1710.16  Lockheed Martin Corporation Postretirement Death Benefit Plan for Elected Officers, as amended (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ppp) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996).7, 2006.

10.1810.17  Deferred Performance Payment Plan of Lockheed Martin Corporation Space & Strategic Missiles Sector (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ooo) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997).
10.1910.18  Resolutions of Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin Corporation dated June 27, 1997 amending Lockheed Martin Non-Qualified Pension Plans (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ppp) to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997).
10.2010.19  Lockheed Martin Corporation Directors Equity Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2007. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 3, 2005)2, 2006).
10.2110.20  Lockheed Martin Corporation Deferred Management Incentive Compensation Plan as amended and restated effective January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.310.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005)March 31, 2006).
10.2210.21  Lockheed Martin Corporation Management Incentive Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1Appendix A to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K2006 Annual Proxy Statement, filed with the SEC on June 28, 2005)March 22, 2006).
10.2310.22  COMSAT Corporation Directors and Officers Deferred Compensation Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to the Form 10-K of COMSAT Corporation, SEC File No. 1-4929, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996).
10.2410.23  Amendment to Lockheed Martin Corporation Nonqualified Retirement Plans (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002).
10.2510.24  Deferred Management Incentive Compensation Plan of Lockheed and its subsidiaries (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001).
10.2610.25  Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan, as amended (incorporated by reference to the Corporation’s 2005 Annual Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on Schedule 14A on March 18, 2005).
10.27Key Executive Retention Bonus Agreement dated December 10, 2001 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.34 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003).

10.2810.26  Five-Year Credit Agreement, dated as of July 15, 2004, among Lockheed Martin Corporation and the Banks listed therein (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.2910.27  Form of Stock Option Award Agreement under the Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.3010.28  Form of Restricted Stock Award Agreement under the Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004).
10.3110.29  Lockheed Martin Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective January 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005).
10.30Form of the Lockheed Martin Corporation Long-Term Incentive Performance Award Agreement (2007-2009 performance period) under the Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan.
10.31Executive Retention Agreement, between Lockheed Martin Corporation Aeronautics Company and Ralph D. Heath, dated June 23, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 17, 2005).
10.32Joint Venture Master Agreement, dated as of May 2, 2005, by and among Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and United Launch Alliance, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005).
10.33Professional Services Agreement, between Lockheed Martin Corporation and Michael F. Camardo, dated February 23, 2007.
10.34Lockheed Martin Corporation Nonqualified Capital Accumulation Plan, effective January 1, 2007.
10.35  Long-Term Performance Award Amendment effective January 1, 2005 (applicable to the 2001-2003, 2002-2004, 2003-20052004-2006 and 2004-20062005-2007 performance periods) (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005).

10.3310.36  Form of the Lockheed Martin Corporation Long-Term Incentive Performance Award Agreement (2004-2006 performance period) under the Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004).
10.3410.37  Form of Lockheed Martin Corporation Long-Term Incentive Performance Award Agreement (2006-2008 performance period) under the Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.4 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 2, 2006).
10.35Salary and Incentive Cash Compensation for Named Executive Officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 2, 2006).
10.36Executive Retention Agreement, between Lockheed Martin Corporation Aeronautics Company and Ralph D. Heath, dated June 23, 2003 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 20, 2005).
10.37Professional Services Agreement, between Lockheed Martin Corporation and Dain M. Hancock, dated December 16, 2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 21, 2004).
10.38Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement under the Lockheed Martin Corporation 2003 Incentive Performance Award Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.2 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 2, 2006).
10.39Restricted Stock Unit Agreement for Robert J. Stevens, dated February 1, 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.3 of Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 2, 2006).
10.40Lockheed Martin Management Incentive Compensation Plan — 2006 Corporate Performance Objectives.

10.41Joint Venture Master Agreement, dated as of May 2, 2005, by and among Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and United Launch Alliance, LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005).
*Exhibits 10.1 through 10.27 and 10.29 through 10.40 constitute management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements.
12  Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the year ended December 31, 2005.2006.
23  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
24  Powers of Attorney.
31.1  Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Robert J. Stevens.
31.2  Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Christopher E. Kubasik.
32.1  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 of Robert J. Stevens.
32.2  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 of Christopher E. Kubasik.
*Exhibits 10.1 through 10.25, 10.27 through 10.31 and 10.33 through 10.37 constitute management contracts or compensatory plans or arrangements required to be filed as an Exhibit to this Form pursuant to Item 14(c) of this
Form 10-K.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Form 10-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

/s/ Martin T. Stanislav*

/s/ Martin T. Stanislav

MARTIN T. STANISLAV

Vice President and Controller

(Chief Accounting Officer)

Date: February 27, 200626, 2007

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Form 10-K has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capabilities and on the dates indicated.

 

Signatures

  

Title

  

Date

/s/ Robert J. Stevens

Chairman, President, Chief

Executive Officer and Director

FebruaryStevens*27, 2006

ROBERT J. STEVENS

  

Chairman, President, Chief Executive    

Officer and Director

  
February 26, 2007    

/s/ Christopher E. Kubasik

CHRISTOPHER E. KUBASIK

  

Executive Vice President and Chief

Chief Financial Officer

  

February27, 200626, 2007

CHRISTOPHER E. KUBASIK

/s/ E.C. “Pete” Aldridge, Jr.*

Director

February27, 2006

E.C. “PETE” ALDRIDGE, JR.

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Nolan D. Archibald*

Director

February27, 2006

NOLAN D. ARCHIBALD

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Marcus C. Bennett*

Director

February27, 2006

MARCUS C. BENNETT

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ James O. Ellis, Jr.*

Director

February27, 2006

JAMES O. ELLIS, JR.

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Gwendolyn S. King*

Director

February27, 2006

GWENDOLYN S. KING

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ James M. Loy*

Director

February27, 2006

JAMES M. LOY

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Douglas H. McCorkindale*

DOUGLAS H. MCCORKINDALE    

  Director ��

Director

February27, 200626, 2007

DOUGLAS H. MCCORKINDALE

/s/ Eugene F. Murphy*

Director

February27, 2006

EUGENE F. MURPHY

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Joseph W. Ralston*

Director

February27, 2006

JOSEPH W. RALSTON

  Director  

February 26, 2007

/s/ Frank Savage*

Director

February27, 2006

FRANK SAVAGE

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ James M. Schneider*

Director

February27, 2006

JAMES M. SCHNEIDER

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Anne Stevens*

Director

February27, 2006

ANNE STEVENS

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ James R. Ukropina*

Director

February27, 2006

JAMES R. UKROPINA

  Director  
February 26, 2007

/s/ Douglas C. Yearley*

Director

February27, 2006

DOUGLAS C. YEARLEY

  DirectorFebruary 26, 2007
    

*By:

/s/ James B. Comey

February27, 2006

(JAMES

        (JAMES B. COMEY, Attorney-in-fact**)

  February 26, 2007

**

By authority of Powers of Attorney filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

13598