General Dynamics Stock

Good morning, and welcome to the General Dynamics Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to Nicole Shelton, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the General Dynamics Second Quarter 2026 Conference Call. Any forward-looking statements made today represent our estimates regarding the company's outlook. These estimates are subject to some risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in the company's 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings.

We will also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. For additional disclosures about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliations to comparable GAAP measures, please see the slides that accompany this webcast, which are available on the Investor Relations page of our website, investorrelations.gd.com.

On the call today are Phebe Novakovic, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Danny Deep, President; and Kim Kuryea, Chief Financial Officer.

I will now turn the call over to Phebe.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for being with us. You may recall that at the outset of his remarks at the end of the first quarter, Danny described it as a very powerful quarter. This quarter is even better in almost all respects. Earlier today, we reported earnings of $4.24 per diluted share on revenue of $14.1 billion, operating earnings of $1.460 billion and net earnings of $1.160 billion.

These results compare quite favorably to the year-ago quarter as well as sequentially. For example, against the year-ago quarter, revenue is up 8.1%, operating earnings are up almost 12%, and net earnings are up 14.4%. As a result, earnings per diluted share are up $0.50 or 13.4%. The operating margin for the entire company is 10.4%, a 40-basis-point improvement over the year-ago quarter, which, coupled with the revenue growth, led to very strong earnings growth.

While Aerospace and Marine led the way on revenue increases, each of the other 2 segments had revenue increases as well. With respect to operating earnings, Aerospace led the way with a 26.6% improvement, followed by Marine Systems with a strong 17.5% increase. Sequentially, against a very good first quarter, revenue is up 4.5%, operating earnings are up 2.8% and diluted earnings per share are up $0.14 or 3.4%.

On a year-to-date basis, revenue of $27.6 billion is up 9.1%. Operating earnings of nearly $2.9 billion are up 11.9% and earnings per share are up $0.95 or 12.8%. We beat consensus by $0.28 in the quarter on more revenue, more operating earnings and better operating margins than is expected by the sell side. In short, it was a superb quarter and first half.

Let me ask our CFO, Kim Kuryea, to provide some detail on our strong order activity, rapidly growing backlog, and superb cash generation as well as other relevant financial data.

Thank you, Phebe, and good morning. I'll start with our outstanding cash performance for the quarter. We generated $1.9 billion of operating cash flow, which when combined with the strong $2.2 billion from the first quarter, yields over $4 billion of operating cash flow in the first half of the year. Each of our segments contributed nicely, exceeding their planned cash flows and driving operating working capital down over $1 billion from the end of 2025.

Capital expenditures totaled $234 million or 1.7% of sales in the quarter. Compared to the first half of 2025, capital expenditures were up nearly 30% to $437 million. We continue to expect capital expenditures between 3.5% and 4% of sales for the full year. You should expect the profile of our investment to grow significantly in the back half of the year as we continue to invest, especially in our shipyards, to accelerate production and meet future demand.

After capital expenditures, our free cash flow was $1.6 billion for the quarter, yielding a cash conversion rate of 142% and $3.6 billion for the first half, a cash conversion rate in excess of 150%. Given our strong cash performance so far, we now expect a free cash flow conversion rate a little north of 100% of net income for the year, let's say, around 105%. That said, we will have a lighter second half than the first, which is due to higher planned capital expenditures, which I've already discussed, and 3 other factors I'll address now.

First, pension. We have decided to contribute approximately $500 million to our pension plans. Given favorable market returns over the last few years, the funded status of many of our plans are near full funding, and this contribution will allow us to derisk those plans and eliminate significant volatility going forward. Second, our cash taxes are weighted toward the back half of the year with over $500 million of payments expected. Third, we will be working down some advance payments on new programs at European Land Systems during the second half.

Now to round out the cash discussion. From a capital deployment perspective, in the quarter, we paid dividends of approximately $430 million and repurchased about $100 million of our common stock to cover dilution. Finally, we repaid $500 million of notes that matured in June. We have another $500 million of notes coming due in August that we anticipate repaying with cash on hand. At this time, we don't anticipate refinancing these maturities during the year, but we will continue to evaluate market conditions and potential borrowing needs as the year progresses. All in all, we ended the quarter with a cash balance of approximately $4.3 billion and a net debt position of $3.2 billion, down $1.2 billion from last quarter.

Next, on to orders and backlog. We had another strong quarter with just shy of $20 billion of orders, yielding an overall book-to-bill ratio of 1.4-to-1 for the company. Book-to-bill in all 4 of our operating segments was greater than 1-to-1. In Aerospace, our dollar-based book-to-bill was 1.5x. This is the strongest first half for orders for Aerospace since 2022 and reflected very solid demand across the entire Gulfstream product line. In the Defense segment, book-to-bill was 1.4x, led by the Combat Systems segment at 2.1x, which received several large contracts, including the production of new armored combat support vehicles, ACSVs, for the Canadian Armed Forces. We ended the quarter with a record level of backlog of $136.5 billion, up 32% from a year ago. Backlog was also a record high for each of our segments. Our total estimated contract value, which includes options and IDIQ contracts, ended the quarter at $186.9 billion.

Turning to interest. Our net interest expense in the second quarter was $49 million compared to $88 million in the respective 2025 period, and $118 million for the first half of 2026 compared to $177 million in the first half of 2025. The decrease in our interest expense is due almost entirely to the interest we paid for commercial paper borrowings in 2025. We have not been in the commercial paper market in 2026. Further, our interest income increased in 2026 as we held higher cash balances. At this point, our expectation for net interest expense for the year is approximately $270 million. Finally, the effective tax rate in the quarter was 17.6%, bringing the tax rate for the first half to 17.7%. This rate is a little higher than our outlook for the full year, which remains around 17.5%.

Phebe, that concludes my remarks. I'll turn it back over to you.

Thanks, Kim. Now I will briefly review the financial performance for each of the groups, and Danny will interject additional details. First, Aerospace. Aerospace had a very good quarter with revenue of $3.5 billion and operating earnings of $510 million with a 14.5% operating margin. Revenue is $463 million more than last year's second quarter, a 15.1% increase. To give you a little perspective here, the increase is attributable to 3 more deliveries and higher service revenue at both Gulfstream and Jet Aviation. The 41 deliveries in the quarter are somewhat more than planned. Operating earnings of $510 million are up $107 million, driven in part by the increased revenue, but most importantly, by a 130-basis-point improvement in operating margin. There are no unusual items of significance. As a result, the improvement quarter-over-quarter comes from a lot of measurable improvements across the entire business.

From an operational perspective, we are off to a strong start to the year. Phebe mentioned 41 deliveries in the quarter. This is 3 more than the year-ago quarter and sequentially as well. We see durable productivity improvements on all new aircraft types with modestly improved margins both year-over-year and sequentially. We performed quite well across all service categories at both Gulfstream and Jet Aviation with improved operating earnings at each, both quarter-over-quarter and sequentially.

You might note that the second-quarter overall operating margins are down sequentially despite the fact that operating margins by line of business all improved. This is attributable to a slightly disadvantageous mix plus a modest increase in both G&A and R&D. Phebe?

Turning to market demand. Aerospace had a 1.5x book-to-bill in the quarter with 16 more airplane orders than the year-ago quarter and 20 more than the first quarter of this year. The book-to-bill over the trailing 12 months is 1.3x. So we see very active interest across all models in the U.S. and Asia, with some cautious concern from customers in the Middle East, but they're still active in the pipeline. In summary, the Aerospace team had a special quarter, both operationally and in terms of order activity.

So let's move on to the defense businesses. First, Combat. Combat Systems had revenue of $2.3 billion, up marginally over the year-ago quarter. Earnings of $318 million are down $6 million. Margins at 13.9% are down 30 basis points against the year-ago quarter, due largely to mix. There was increased revenue performance at Ordnance and Tactical Systems and European Land Systems, offset by a decline at Land Systems.

Sequentially, revenue is up modestly, but earnings are up 2.6% on a 30-basis-point improvement in operating margin. The real good news story here is the order performance at 2.1-to-1 book-to-bill continues to build strong significant backlog. A large portion of the order activity in the quarter was at Land Systems. Demand for Combat Systems products is strong, primarily driven by U.S. allies. Orders for wheeled and tracked vehicles are up, reflecting the increased threat environment. In addition, OTS continues to have particularly strong growth in munitions.

So I want to repeat what I said last quarter because performance this quarter further demonstrates the strength and breadth of the combat portfolio, particularly with international vehicles as well as our munitions group. It's encouraging during this period of transition and recapitalization to next-generation platforms for our U.S. land force customers that the overall group continues to provide a healthy growth outlook with very nice margins. You have seen the 2.1x book-to-bill in the quarter. We're confident there is more to come. Phebe?

So turning to Marine Systems. Once again, our shipyards are each demonstrating strong revenue growth. This quarter's growth of 10.4% was driven by the Columbia and Virginia-class programs, followed by NASSCO and Bath expressed in dollar increases. However, in growth expressed as a percentage of revenue, both NASSCO and Bath outpaced Electric Boat for the first time in my memory. Earnings improved 17.5% on a 40-basis-point improvement in operating margin.

We can point to clear and measurable productivity gains. As you know, to support this growth, we have made significant investments in each of our shipyards, particularly at Electric Boat. We will continue to invest as we go forward to support the additional demand we see in the national security interest of the United States. Turning to operating performance...

As Phebe mentioned, momentum continues to build at each of our shipyards, and we are making good progress with our efforts to accelerate build rates. A great example of this is at Bath Iron Works, where our most recent DDG-51 destroyer delivery was accelerated by almost 3 months versus plan due to the excellent performance of the ship in its sea trial. At Electric Boat on the Columbia program, we had a significant increase in the number of hours earned as compared to both the year-ago quarter and sequentially. In the first half of this year, the hours earned are up 37% versus the same period last year. Material deliveries also continue to improve with a 65% increase in sequence-critical material this quarter over the second quarter last year.

Let me state the obvious. This is the segment, given its backlog and improving productivity, where we can accelerate value for our shareholders as we accelerate delivery of submarines, surface combatants and auxiliary ships. Continuous operational improvement has our undivided attention and focus.

Back to you, Phebe.

So finally, Technologies. This group is also experiencing growth in revenue and earnings, albeit not at the pace experienced by Aerospace and Marine Systems. Revenue of $3.6 billion is an increase of 4.1% over the second quarter of 2025. Both businesses contributed respectable growth, but Mission Systems led the way. Operating earnings of $339 million are up 2.1% over the year-ago quarter. Operating margin decreased 20 basis points from 9.6% to 9.4%. The group's order activity was also encouraging with a book-to-bill of 1.1x for the quarter and 1.3x for the trailing 12 months.

Growth in Mission Systems came from across the portfolio, most notably in Land and Air Systems and in their international portfolio. The international portfolio was up more than 35% since 2024, and we expect that to continue to be a key driver of growth for the year and beyond.

In IT services, we've discussed elongated procurement cycles and that continues. But a real bright spot has been GDIT's success in capturing programs under agile contracting mechanisms such as other transaction authorities, or OTAs. GDIT has submitted and won more OTAs in the first half of 2026 than for all of last year.

So let's turn to guidance for the rest of the year. At the outset, I want to review what we've told you to date. In January, we told you to assume an EPS range of $16.10 to $16.20. In April, our updated guidance for 2026 was an EPS range of $16.45 to $16.55. With that as a predicate, let me proceed to provide our operating forecast for the remainder of '26 with some specifics around our outlook for each business group and then a company-wide roll-up.

For 2026, we now expect Aerospace revenue of around $13.8 billion. Gulfstream will still deliver about 160 airplanes. There is some potential upside delivering large-cabin aircraft and some risk on the 280 deliveries for obvious reasons. We anticipate a 14.7% operating margin for the year. The third-quarter operating margin will be about the same as this quarter with a better fourth quarter.

In Combat, we expect revenue of about $9.8 billion, coupled with a 13.8% operating margin. As noted earlier, the Marine group has been on a remarkable growth journey. Our outlook for the year now anticipates revenue around $18 billion with an operating margin for the year of 7.4%. In Technologies, we expect revenue of $14.1 billion and an operating margin of 9.4%.

So for 2026, company-wide, we expect to see revenue of approximately $55.7 billion and operating margin of 10.5%. You've already heard Kim's commentary about our estimates for cash flow for the year, tax rate and interest expense. All this rolls up to an increased EPS forecast of $16.80 to $16.90 for the year.

To wrap up, as we go into the second half coming off a very strong first half, we feel very good about the potential for the second half and the full year.

Nicole, back to you.

Thank you, Phebe. [Operator Instructions] Operator, could you please remind participants how to enter the queue?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from David Strauss from Wells Fargo.

Maybe, Phebe, with the backlog increase that we saw this quarter at Aerospace, could you talk, maybe in terms of years of production, how far out that extends and how much you could take production up from kind of current levels to start to eat into that backlog?

So you've followed us long enough to know that some time ago, we ceased giving you the details about model and years out. That became a very competitive issue. But look, we will -- the supply chain has stabilized. We're getting -- coming down our learning curves on all of our products. We're still working through some of the challenges on completion. So it's just a question of pace. So we'll take all of this into due consideration and give you some real clarity next year what to expect.

Okay. And a quick follow-up on Marine. It has consistently exceeded kind of expectations and the growth outlook that you've outlined. And it looks like for the rest of the year, you're forecasting kind of minimal growth in the second half of the year. Maybe if you can just talk about kind of the longer-term trajectory here. I mean I know it's law of large numbers at this point, but is there a reason to believe that Marine growth meaningfully decelerates kind of from the levels that we've seen?

Yes. Let me take that one. I think the second half as compared to the first half is really just a function of material receipts, stuff that we received in the first half that we're actually now installing. And as you know, it's important to reflect that we've increased sales for 2026 over 2025 by almost $1.3 billion, which exceeded even what we thought. I think we'll see it continue to grow, maybe not quite at that pace, but certainly, we're getting up into, as you say, a law of large numbers. But we don't have any expectation that it will slow down much because there's just volume out there that we have to execute on. But it's natural tail off in the second half of the year compared to the first.

Your next question comes from Ron Epstein from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

So on Marine, just following up on Marine, where are we on build rate on Virginia-class now, right? I mean, are we still like 1.3 a year, 1.4? I mean, is there -- can you maybe put something around that?

Yes. We don't typically give the exact build rate. We leave that to the Navy. But as you know, we're trying to get to 2 Virginia-class and 1 Columbia in the early 2030s time frame. And we're on that path, and we're actually where we expect to be at this point in the process.

Okay. So you're making strides with the supply chain. It's my understanding that, that was one of the hurdles.

Yes. I mean we have seen significant improvements in their pace and the cadence of delivery. I mean, there are still some challenging areas, as I think we mentioned in the last call, where we have single sources of supply. But generally, the supply chain is improving, and we're counting on it to continue to improve.

Great. And Phebe, one for you. How are you thinking about the budget process now as we go into fiscal '27? You probably know the budget process better than anybody in Washington. How are you thinking about it? Like how should we think about it? It seems like there's so much volatility in terms of there is going to be reconciliation, there isn't; there's a baseline, there's not; there's midterm. So kind of broadly, how do you think about it?

Yes. So I would say that there are a lot more factors today influencing the budget than there have been historically. But from our perspective, a lot of our programs are funded in the base budget. But the reconciliation is important, because if you stop and think about it, weapons production has been on very low-rate production or fairly minimally sustaining production for quite some time. And in order to gear up production to meet the current threat environment, we need additional funds and the entire industry does. And so this is, I think, from a national security perspective, meritorious. So there are a lot of moving parts on all of this, and we'll continue to support our customers and the Congress as best we can.

Your next question comes from Myles Walton at Wolfe Research.

Phebe, I was wondering if you can maybe talk about the M&A backdrop, which you haven't been as active in, in the last several years. But I'm curious if there's any interest in reengaging given obvious balance sheet strength, the DoD's relatively negative view on share repurchase overall. What does your M&A pipeline look like? What kind of properties would even be attractive to you at this point?

Nice try. Look, this is something we always look at and something we never talk about. I just think that's imprudent. But it's always on our mind. So you can rest assured about that. You want to ask another question?

Would you say there's any shift in the way you look at it, even if you can't speak to it?

No. No, we've consistently looked at it this way when we have met some of our other obligations with respect to cash, or if there's a particularly attractive bolt-on out there. But we are doing what we always have done, it's understand the marketplace and see what if anything makes sense. But golly jeez, we just never talk about it.

Okay. Maybe one that maybe, Dan, you can talk to, or Phebe, on the missile framework agreements. Have you seen in Combat, within OTS, much of that coming your way on second-source solid-rocket motors, particularly with some of the interest of aggressive dual sourcing?

Yes. So we are a subcontractor, both at OTS and Mission Systems, to a number of the missile primes, and we have some content on all of the missiles for the most part with things like actuators and motor cases at OTS and guidance systems and other components at Mission Systems. So the framework agreements that the primes have signed up to, we have mirrored agreements with them to ramp up. And so we're, again, a part of the supply chain, but certainly not a prime there.

Your next question comes from Robert Stallard of Vertical Research.

This might be for you, Phebe, or for Danny. But it sounds like the supply chain across the group is getting better. I was wondering if you could confirm that. And if there are any areas of concern that still exist as you look forward to the rest of the year?

Yes. I would say, broadly speaking, when we look across the areas that maybe we highlighted in the past that were causing some difficulties, there has been a noticeable improvement in the cadence. Areas of concern haven't really changed where we have single sources of supply for large complex components, and that can be somewhat of a pacing item. But when we look across the entire enterprise in each of the operating units, there has been a noticeable improvement in the supply chain, and that's a really good thing.

Okay. And a quick follow-up. There was some news overnight about the Virginia-class submarine Block VI being approved by the Secretary of the Navy. I was wondering if you could give us some sort of preliminary thoughts on how the next block of submarines could differ from Block V in terms of contractual terms or accounting or something like that?

So we saw that as well. We're told that these contracts will be coming soon. And when we get those, let's give you the clarity that you're seeking here. I think that's best done after the awards are granted.

Your next question comes from Doug Harned from Bernstein.

On Combat, you've gotten some really, really good increases in backlog. And as we had looked at this before, we saw a lot of the growth coming from European Land Systems. But now these awards are much outside of Europe. When you go forward, how do you see growth now across geographies? Do you have more optimism in a sense about growth coming from the U.S.?

So I think what we expect to see is double-digit growth continuing at European Land Systems given the threat environment and the demand for combat support vehicles as well as other systems, OTS because of artillery missile components, 155. And then within Land Systems, this is a transition period, as we talked about before, but the double-digit growth at OTS and ELS ought to drive high-single-digit growth for the group going forward.

And then switching over to Gulfstream. You're in a great demand situation, certainly working on the supply chain. But as you go forward, you'll soon have the full portfolio of G400 and G800 out there, how do you think of having that portfolio of aircraft with commonality? Which customers does that portfolio breadth particularly appeal to? And does it give you some margin opportunities ahead in pricing?

So we built this family of aircraft to satisfy the missions that we knew that our customers flew, and they're varied. Some customers want a suite of airplanes, from the large ones to the medium-sized ones, depending on where they fly, how they fly, and who they fly. There are others who are primarily driven by large cabin given their missions. And so we see -- this is the intent of this whole family of aircraft. So there are certainly some benefits as we continue to come down our learning curve there. And of course, as you know, we never discuss pricing, but from my point of view, given the broad spectrum of offerings that we have and will have once the 300 and 400 are out in the market, new product has driven demand. That's always been our view, and it continues to remain our view. This is a wholesome portfolio.

Your next question comes from Sheila Kahyaoglu with Jefferies.

I wanted to ask 2 questions on margins. One on Aerospace. So on Aerospace, as we think about margins, up 100 bps from first half of '25. How do we think about the margin baseline from here, whether it's model mix? Phebe, I think you mentioned Q3 will look similar to Q2 given timing of higher G&A and R&D. How do you think about opportunities for upside for Aerospace margins from here?

Yes. I think from a margin standpoint, as Phebe mentioned in her remarks, I think the third quarter will look a lot like the second quarter with the fourth quarter being the strongest from a margin standpoint. And that is, as Phebe mentioned, the fact that we're coming down the learning curve on all of the airplanes, but also due to favorable mix. And I think the margins, you can expect them to continue to be in that neighborhood with some slight variability all associated with mix.

Okay. And then on Marine, you raised the margins up 10 bps. It seems small, but a big deal from where you guys have come from. I guess, can you provide an update on where the workforce supply chain is from here on Marine? Any risks? And is this a good baseline to work off of?

Yes. From a workforce standpoint, we've been really pleased with our ability to attract and retain the necessary number of workers in our shipyards and...

And the Navy has been a help.

And the Navy has been a great help with that in a lot of different ways. And so from a ramping standpoint, we are hitting exactly what we need to hit from a resource standpoint on that front. So very positive from that perspective. And then as you mentioned, from a margin standpoint, the improvement in margin is a function of throughput and improvements on the deckplates and with the supply chain improving. And we can expect that, that will continue a slow, steady drumbeat as we continue to focus on executing.

Your next question comes from Seth Seifman with JPMorgan.

I wanted to ask about -- like, of course, most of our conversations tend to revolve around subs, but you talked about the high percentage growth in surface ships, and it was pretty nice growth in the first quarter as well. When we think about the growth potential for that portion of the business over the next several years, given what's been in recent shipbuilding budgets and what may be ahead of us, is there any way to dimensionalize the growth opportunity outside of the submarine portion of the business?

Yes. So at Bath, growth will continue as we improve our throughput and productivity, which they are doing and have done materially over the last few years. And at NASSCO, again, it will be driven by increased demand and coming down our learning curves on the oilers and other support and supply ships. NASSCO is very well positioned and has been for some time. It's a high-performing shipyard, and it has the capability, design and manufacturing capability to design and produce complex auxiliary ships, sub tenders, oilers. So we like very much the positioning that NASSCO is in, and we see some growth there as well with additional product coming in, because they have additional capacity, by the way.

Excellent. Very good. And then one follow-up on Technologies and GDIT. We've seen the administration be very vocal about a desire to shift to fixed-price contracting. When you think about the impact there for GDIT, how quickly do you see that change happening?

So we've always encouraged fixed-price contracting when it's appropriate and the customer is interested. So we see additional interest in fixed price, which we welcome. And we're also very interested in agile acquisition programs and pipelines that allow us to bring product quickly to our customers. GDIT is very fast in what they execute, and their investments that they've made over the last few years have well positioned them in the marketplace.

Your next question comes from Gautam Khanna with TD Cowen.

I was wondering, Phebe, if you could opine on Aerospace margin potential a couple of years out. I know, about a year or 2 ago, you did. I mean, you did it then.

We haven't -- let me interrupt you, because we haven't given you, I think in the whole tenure of this leadership team, any kind of out-year. I think once or twice we've given you some out-year color. We're not going to go there on margin. But let's just say both Jet Aviation and Gulfstream are high-performing companies, and they'll continue to improve over time.

You can ask another question.

Yes. Just relative to prior peak, given the model introductions you're doing, et cetera, is that a reasonable baseline to prior peak margins?

Look, the prior -- yes, again, I'm going to interrupt you, because the prior peak was really all around 1 product, and this is now a portfolio of products. From large cabin to midsized cabin, they carry different margins with them. By definition, they do. So it's a more complicated, more robust and I think, frankly, a richer product offering for the market to avail itself of, and we're seeing that. So we're not going to get into the business of how good can it get at the moment, but you will see continued performance within this construct of this new business model that we've got as a result of the investments we've made in these family of aircraft.

Great. And then just on the shipbuilding contracts, the submarine contracts you're awaiting, is there any -- like what forces the urgency on the customer side to place the order? I just wonder what capabilities are lost if they delay? Because we've been waiting for quite some time. I'm sure you guys have been aware that the Street has been expecting these for about a year now. And I just wondered what consequence happens if we go another quarter?

Yes. I think the customer and the submarine industrial base are aligned around the need for getting these contracts out, particularly to stabilize the industrial base and to ensure that we continue to have long lead material for these contracted in advance of these long-term development programs. But as I noted, we're told that the contracts will be coming soon. And so we're confident that when they come out, I think it will be as we expected and very welcomed by the supply chain in particular.

Your next question comes from Kristine Liwag with Morgan Stanley.

Phebe, I want to dive in a little bit deeper into GDIT. In the past few quarters, you've talked about how AI was a big driver of growing demand, particularly in defense. So when we think about these AI models maturing and pilot programs going to larger product deployments, how do you think about the role of AI? And how is GD positioned in that ecosystem? Ultimately, is this more of an acceleration of earnings growth for now? Or do you think operational efficiencies in AI could potentially shrink the addressable market?

Are you asking across the company as a whole or GDIT?

Maybe GDIT in particular for this question.

Yes. So let's step back a minute and remember how GDIT has been strategically thinking about innovation in general for the last few years. And they've invested in what they call their digital accelerators, which we've talked about before, including an early focus on AI and automation. And that focus has provided them the skills to build and secure and connect the latest technologies and apply them to a growing number of agencies and systems. And what we're seeing is AI tightly integrated in with cybersecurity and opportunities that, frankly, are spanning most of GDIT's portfolio. It also helps to have deep and rich relationships with a number of the OEMs and partners. So GDIT has been very agile in its strategic, I think, planning as well as implementation of AI and automation as well as other important technology improvements.

Great. Super helpful. And Phebe, my follow-up question, I know it's longer term, so maybe you won't answer it, but I hope you would. When we look at the pricing model for Aerospace, it's clear that in the past decade or so, we've seen the premium end of the business jet market really more look like the luxury market. In the luxury market, you see margins north of 20% EBIT over time. I guess with your portfolio, which is arguably the strongest brand, and also with the refresh of the portfolio, it is really unique in the market. Is there upside to your pricing power over time where you can get towards those luxury-type margins? I mean, it is much harder to build an aircraft versus handbags and champagne, but those guys have higher margin.

I got you. So I'm going to quarrel with you on 1 word, luxury. I would argue that is a misapprehension or characterization of these, but really are tools. And for almost all -- for all of our Fortune 500, Fortune 100 companies and both public and private, they are business tools. There are some high net worth individuals who participate in the market, but even they will tell you -- even in those cases, they'll tell you this is really about efficiency -- safety, efficiency and efficacy in doing their jobs. So I think that's important. These are not luxury yachts that sail around the Mediterranean. These are airplanes that get the job done for our customers, whatever their mission is.

So look, we are well-positioned in the marketplace because we have all these new products that we've heavily invested in and that we are producing and producing at scale and well with the attention we've always had on quality and safety. So I think by definition, that positions us well in the market without getting into any specificity about out-year margin performance, but we believe in the capability of both Jet Aviation and Gulfstream to continue to improve and continue to produce with this family of airplanes. Does that help you?

It does. Thank you, Phebe.

Your next question comes from Scott Deuschle with Deutsche Bank.

Danny, are G700 margins approaching mature levels at this point? Or is there still a meaningful gap between where margins are today on G700 and where mature margins might ultimately land?

Yes. I think we're still coming down the curve, specifically around completion. So I think there's still more opportunity, and we're seeing that both on the G700 as well as the G800. So I think there's still more room for them.

Okay. And then Phebe, can you share an update on the G300 and G400 development time lines, and your latest expectations as to the timing of EIS for each of those aircraft?

Yes. Well, as you know, I'm no longer in the business of estimating EIS given that the regulators set the pace. But with respect to the 300, and thank you for raising that because I think it's important to recognize that we're going to have a gap in production from the end of the 280, which the final 280 ought to deliver in the second quarter of next year, and the onset of the 300, which late '27, early '28, somewhere in that. And so we'll have a planned production break, so that if you infer from that quite correctly, that we'll talk more about large cabins next year. On the 400, we've whipped up our efforts on the 400, and we'll have more to say over the next couple of quarters about where we think the 400 will be, but these new airplanes are coming, and we're pretty excited about it.

Does that production break create any kind of absorption pressure that we should be aware of?

No, not given the agreement we have with our partner, who, by the way, has, in this environment, continued to perform beautifully and has its relentless excellence emphasis on quality. But for obvious reasons, some production may lag a little bit at the end of this year. And then we have this bit of a gap on the 300.

So Dara, I think we have time for 1 more question.

Our last question comes from John Godyn with Citigroup.

I wanted to just double-click on Aerospace supply chain, if you don't mind. Obviously, it's humming for you guys. There are other players out there that have been struggling a bit. Do you feel like you guys are doing something special, obviously, executing well, but special, or perhaps the issues that we're seeing elsewhere are idiosyncratic to those companies?

Yes. I can't speak to the situation at some of these other companies. I can tell you that for the major components, Gulfstream has a very clear relationship that has really given the supply chain visibility into our production plans for whatever period is appropriate. And so they are able to keep up now, and our expectation is they will be in the future as well. So I don't know what the others are seeing, but we're pretty tightly integrated with these key suppliers, and they're keeping up.

And their ability to -- the supply chain's ability to continue to produce and produce on schedule has been very helpful in ensuring that we continue to drive our orders. And orders were, of course, a big component of our -- a significant component of our cash for this quarter. So it's really a team effort between Gulfstream and its suppliers.

Excellent. And if I could just ask a follow-up. Earlier, Ron, Phebe, asked about the outlook for Defense, and you mentioned the resiliency in the portfolio. I just wanted to re-ask that, but with a focus on the Technologies portfolio specifically. Maybe you can speak a bit about the sensitivity of that portfolio to extended CRs or alternatively to the upside, a budget environment that's more in the direction of Trump's request?

So we have handled, in the Technologies group, which are both fairly relative to our portfolio at large, faster cycle businesses. We've managed the CRs pretty well. So I would expect us to be able to do so as long as they're not too extended. I think both businesses are poised for some growth. Particularly, Mission Systems, as you recall, has gone through a transformation from a lot of legacy systems into investments in new programs and new products, and that is beginning to take off. So we continue to see continued strong growth there and the steady growth that we have seen -- steady incremental growth we have seen at GDIT.

And look, they've got a pretty robust pipeline at about $120-plus billion. That's a qualified pipeline out there. So that positions them well to continue to perform across their hundreds of programs. That's both for Mission Systems and GDIT. And it's all about your ability to meet your customers' needs quickly and with excellent products and quality on time.

Great. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining our call today. As a reminder, please refer to the General Dynamics website for the second quarter earnings release and highlights presentation. Finally, we want to let you know that we expect to hold our Q3 earnings call on Friday, October 30, at 9:00 a.m. We will resume our normal schedule for the fourth quarter call. If you have additional questions, I can be reached at (703) 876-3152.

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, and welcome to the General Dynamics First Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call.

[Operator Instructions]

Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Nicole Shelton, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the General Dynamics First Quarter 2026 Conference Call. Any forward-looking statements made today represent our estimates regarding the company's outlook. These estimates are subject to some risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in the company's 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings. We will also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. For additional disclosures about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliations to comparable GAAP measures, please see the slides that accompany this webcast, which are available on the Investor Relations page of our website, investorrelations.gd.com. On the call today are Danny Deep, President; and Kim Kuryea, Chief Financial Officer. I will now turn the call over to Danny.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for being with us. The first thing I'll note is that our Chairman and CEO, Phebe Novakovic, had a family illness that required her absence. So I'll be conducting today's call along with Kim. At the very outset of these remarks, let me share with you our view that this was a very powerful quarter in all respects. Earlier today, we reported earnings of $4.10 per diluted share on revenue of $13.5 billion, operating earnings of $1.420 billion and net earnings of $1.125 billion. These results compare quite favorably to the year ago quarter, which in and of itself, was a very good quarter. For example, revenue was up 10.3% and importantly, operating earnings are up 12% and net earnings are up 13.2%. As a result, earnings per diluted share are up $0.44, 12% on more than a year ago quarter.

The operating margin for the entire company was 10.5%, a 10 basis point improvement over a year ago quarter, which coupled with the revenue growth, led to very strong earnings growth. While Aerospace and Marine led the way on revenue increases, each of the other 2 segments enjoyed revenue increases as well. A similar pattern is true with respect to operating earnings. Each of the segments demonstrated better performance led by Marine Systems with a 26.4% increase from improved operating performance across all of our shipyards coupled with the revenue increase. We beat consensus by $0.43 in the quarter on more revenue and better operating margins than expected by the sell side.

In short, this performance exceeded our own expectations. We also had a terrific quarter from a cash flow perspective together with strong order intake, which led to a larger backlog, which Kim will discuss in greater detail in a moment. From our perspective, we have opened the year on a very positive note. At this point, let me ask Kim Kuryea, our CFO, to provide details on our superb cash flow, order activity and solid backlog before I come back with segment observations.

Thank you, Danny, and good morning. Let me start by addressing our outstanding cash performance during the first quarter. The first quarter was a very strong start to the year with operating cash flow of $2.2 billion. We got out of the gate with our business units overwhelmingly exceeding their planned cash flow and driving operating working capital down. Compared to the first quarter of 2025, capital expenditures were up over 40% to $203 million. While capital expenditures were around 1.5% of sales in the quarter, we continue to expect capital expenditure between 3.5% and 4% of sales for the full year. You should expect the profile of our investment to grow each quarter as we continue to invest, especially in our shipyards to accelerate production and meet demand.

After considering capital expenditures, our free cash flow for the quarter was just shy of $2 billion, yielding a cash conversion rate in the quarter of 174%. We continue to expect a free cash flow conversion rate of 100% of net income for the year, but the strong cash acceleration into the first quarter results in a profile that will look a little different than what I provided in January. We now expect the first quarter to represent the largest quarter of free cash flow with positive cash flow in each of the remaining quarters, supporting our continued efforts to drive cash to the left.

Also in the quarter, we paid dividends of approximately $400 million and repurchased about $200 million of our common stock to cover dilution. After adding it all up, we ended the quarter with a cash balance of $3.7 billion and a net debt position of $4.4 billion, down $1.3 billion from last quarter.

Moving now to orders and backlog. Our order activity and backlog continued to be a strong story and a highlight for us in the first quarter. We received over $26 billion of orders achieving an overall book-to-bill ratio of 2:1 even as revenue grew by over 10% from the year ago quarter. The robust demand across our portfolio resulted in total backlog of $131 billion, an impressive 48% increase over last year and 11% higher than just a quarter ago. Total estimated contract value, which includes options and IDIQ contracts, ended the quarter at another record level of $188 billion, a 33% increase from last year.

Now some final areas -- some final items in my area to address. We have $500 million of notes coming due in both June and August 2026 for a total of $1 billion. Our plan assumes that the $1 billion will be refinanced, but this is something that we will continue to evaluate throughout the year.

Turning to interest. Our net interest expense in the quarter was $69 million compared to $89 million in the respective 2025 period. The decrease is due almost entirely to the interest we paid for commercial paper borrowings in the first quarter of 2025.

Wrapping up with income taxes. Our effective tax rate in the first quarter of 2026 was 17.8%, generally consistent with our full year guidance of 17.5%. Danny, that concludes my remarks. I'll turn it back over to you.

Thanks, Kim. Now I'll review the financial performance for each of the groups. First, Aerospace. Aerospace did very well in the quarter. It had revenue of $3.3 billion and operating earnings of $493 million with a 15% operating margin. Revenue was $253 million more than last year's first quarter, an 8.4% increase. To give you a little perspective here, the increase was driven by 2 more aircraft deliveries and higher services revenue at both Gulfstream and Jet Aviation. The 38 deliveries in the quarter are exactly as planned. Operating earnings of $493 million are up $61 million driven in part by the increased revenue, but most importantly, by a 70 basis point improvement in operating margin. The comparison with last year's first quarter is particularly instructive from my point of view, the number of deliveries is similar, but up by 2 in the quarter, neither quarter was significantly burdened by tariff costs and neither has any unusual items of significance.

As a result, the improvement quarter-over-quarter comes from a lot of measurable improvements across the entire business. From an operational perspective, we are off to a strong start to the year and as I mentioned, with 38 deliveries in the quarter, that happens to be the highest number of deliveries for any first quarter in Gulfstream history. We see durable productivity improvements on the G700 and 800 in both manufacturing and completions. Performance on the G800 has been a particular standout. This quarter, they delivered with very good gross margins.

In fact, it was better than the G650s that it replaced which delivered in the first quarter of 2025, quite remarkable given how recently G800s have entered into service. In fact, we will deliver only our 25th G800 this coming quarter, so very positive, given how early we are in that program.

Turning to market demand. We had a 1.2 book-to-bill in the quarter with 17 more airplane orders than the year ago quarter. We were on our way to a spectacular quarter, but numerous transactions slowed at the end of the quarter as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. The book-to-bill over the trailing 12 months is 1.3x. So we see very active interest across all models in the U.S., but some cautious concern for some customers in the Middle East. We are also off to a solid start in the first month of this quarter.

In summary, the aerospace team had a special quarter operational. So let's move on to the defense businesses. First, Combat Systems. Combat Systems had revenue of $2.28 billion up almost 5% over the year ago quarter. Earnings of $310 million are up 6.5%. Margins at 13.6% are up 20 basis points against the year ago quarter. The increased revenue performance was at Ordnance and Tactical Systems and European Land Systems. We also experienced good order performance at 0.9:1 book-to-bill given the third and fourth quarters of 2025 book-to-bill of 2x and 4.3x, respectively. In fact, on a trailing 12-month basis, the book-to-bill has been 2.1x.

Demand for Combat Systems products is strong, driven primarily by U.S. allies. Wheeled and tracked vehicles are up, reflecting the increased threat environment. In addition, ordinance and tactical systems continue to lead this group's growth with particularly strong growth in munitions. What is encouraging for Combat is during this period of recapitalization and transition to next-generation platforms for our U.S. land force customers is the breadth of this portfolio with both international vehicles as well as our munitions group that continue to provide a nice growth outlook with very solid margins.

Turning to Marine Systems. Once again, our shipbuilding units are demonstrating strong revenue growth. Revenue has continued to increase to reflect increased demand and importantly, increased throughput across all of our shipyards. This quarter's growth of 21% was driven primarily by the Columbia and Virginia class programs, followed by the oiler at NASCO. Repair volume has also increased at both our East and West Coast repair yard. Of significance, earnings improved 26.4% on improved productivity in each of our shipyards. As you know, to support this growth, we have made significant investments in each of our shipyards, particularly at Electric Boat, and we will continue to invest as we go forward to support the additional demand we see.

Turning to operating performance. Momentum is building at each of our shipyards at Electric Boat on the Columbia program, we have seen a 29% increase in the number of hours earned as compared to first quarter 2025. And while we still have areas in the supply chain where we need an increased cadence, we have seen a marked improvement versus first quarter a year ago. For sequence critical material, we have seen a 52% increase in the number of items received as compared to this time period last year. At [indiscernible] Iron Works, the DDG51 program continues to improve in both efficiency and schedule. And at NASCO, we'll deliver the final expeditionary sea-based ship this summer with capacity to support additional TAOs or other auxiliary -- or commercial programs.

And finally, technologies. This group also experienced growth in revenue and earnings, albeit not at the pace of the other segments. Revenue of $3.6 billion was an increase of 4.2% over the first quarter of 2025. Both businesses contributed to the growth of Mission Systems led the way with an 11.7% increase. Operating earnings of $339 million were up 3.4% over the year-ago quarter. Operating margins decreased 10 basis points from 9.6% to 9.5%. The group's order activity was also encouraging with a book-to-bill of 1.3x for the quarter and 1.2x for the trailing 12 months. This segment continues to compete very well in its markets with win and capture rates between 80% and 90%. For GDIT, we're seeing strong demand for our AI and cyber capabilities. Q1 orders exceeded our internal plans across the portfolio with particular strength in defense. And despite elongated procurement cycles and fewer customer adjudications, GDIT ended the quarter with a 5% increase in the backlog as compared to year-end 2025, which is encouraging given their near record revenue this quarter.

Mission Systems had a strong quarter from an operational standpoint with a 50 basis point expansion in margins as compared to a year ago, driven by a favorable product mix and their broader transition away from legacy programs to highly differentiated systems. So to wrap things up, while we historically have not updated our guidance after the first quarter, given our strong start, we thought it would be prudent to revise our EPS guidance to reflect our performance thus far and its implication for the full year.

As a reminder, in January, we told you to assume an EPS range of $16.10 to $16.20. Our updated guidance for 2026 would be an EPS range of $16.45 to $16.55. Looking at the year from a quarterly perspective, the first and fourth quarters would represent the high points, favoring the fourth quarter given its typical increased volume with the second and third quarters trailing a bit on expected mix. As is our long-standing practice, we will refresh our internal forecast in detail during the second quarter and elaborate more on the specifics by segment on the July call. Nicole, back to you.

Thank you, Danny. [Operator Instructions].

[Operator Instructions]

We'll take our first question from Robert Stallard at Vertical Research.

Danny, I was wondering if you could comment on the supply chain situation. You seem to have touched on it a little bit in marine, but I was wondering how you're getting on across the broader group, whether there are any tight points that you're trying to address?

Yes. I would say, broadly speaking, as it relates to the supply chain for the whole Marine Group, we have seen an increased cadence on time, deliveries are up. I think we're not seeing the same number of quality issues that we saw in the previous year. I think we still see some areas in the supply chain where we need to get the cadence up, and those problems tend to be where we have complex components or complex systems where there are just single sources of supply. But broadly speaking, we are seeing improvements.

Okay. And then a quick follow-up. It looks like the Ajax program is back in testing again in the U.K. Maybe for Kim, I was wondering if there had been any accounting or financial implications of the stoppage there the restart?

No, they have not. Everything is business as usual from an Ajax perspective.

We'll move next to Kristine Liwag at Morgan Stanley.

When we look at the fiscal '27 budget request from the White House, there's a fairly large step-up in shipbuilding dollars, you guys have talked about the tightness in labor historically and the supply chain issues in marine. But I was wondering, as you look at the significant step-up in opportunities, are there things that General Dynamics could do to capture more of this growth sooner. It seems like there's more of an urgency to rebuild our Navy.

Yes. Like, as you can imagine, the lead times for producing these ships pretty extensive. And I think what we see in the budget is good support for the programs that are already in work and certainly, it helps the volume. But we don't anticipate that any of these awards are going to change dramatically the number of ships that we have to produce in the immediate term.

And then also when we look at that fourth projection by number of shifts, you've got your traditional programs, but then there's also some of these smaller surface vehicles and smaller unmanned undersea vehicles. I was wondering can you talk about the opportunities for that and is there a way for you to capture more of that smaller end market, especially if we're looking at higher volumes.

Yes. So we have been investing in the unmanned undersea platforms for a number of years with our Mission Systems group through Bluefin. So we're, I think, poised well to participate in the growth in that market. As far as smaller ships on the surface combatant side, we don't really see that. We're going to focus on what we do at NASCO, with oilers and sealift and sub-tenders and at Bath Iron Works with DDG51s and the next destroyer that's out there. But we don't anticipate moving into the smaller ship surface wise.

Next, we'll go to Peter Arment at Baird.

Danny, maybe if you could give some comments on just any impacts you've seen out of the Middle East, whether it's affecting Gulfstream or whether you've had any other impacts more favorably, I guess, on the munitions side of things. So maybe just some overall color of any early -- any feedback from Middle East operations.

Sure. So let me just maybe focus on aerospace initially. As I think we said in our comments, we were having a spectacular quarter from an order standpoint across the board here in the United States as well as the Middle East and then as the conflict started to take form. We saw some slowing in order intake in the Middle East. So certainly impacted on the order side, albeit still pretty robust. From a supply side, as you can imagine, some of what we get from that part of the world is impacted, and it's really a labor force issue. So all of the airplanes that we delivered in the first quarter of 2026, we actually had those airplanes in inventory ready for completion prior to the conflict. So I mean, we're watching that, but certainly, world events could impact supply there.

From a demand side, on the defense side, I mean, it's a little early. We're certainly in plenty of discussions with a number of customers where we've had long-standing relationships, but we haven't necessarily matured those opportunities to the point where I can comment that we see increased demand. But I think a lot will depend on how long this goes and what sort of demand we see in terms of refilling their inventories.

I appreciate that. And just a quick follow-up. Just you mentioned Columbia construction is progressing. Can you just give us the latest of like [ where you ] are on kind of the first haul and where things are progressing otherwise?

Sure. Really positive momentum on Colombia. All the major modules we received by the end of last year, and so we're in the process of integrating and assembling those in one of our larger yards and expect to have a real key milestone achieved by the end of this year and on a path to deliver that first boat in -- by the end of 2028. So excellent progress in the last 6 or 9 months on the Columbia program and on the path to deliver.

Our next question comes from Seth Seifman at JPMorgan.

I wanted to ask about Aerospace. And I know you said you weren't refreshing guidance within the segments. But the first quarter came in nicely ahead of the expectation for the year on margin rate. The reasons for that, that you mentioned seem to be fairly enduring. Are there particular things we should be watching for that would be pushing margin down going forward? Or has Gulfstream, in particular, maybe aerospace more broadly, you kind of gotten over the hump with regard to some of these supply chain challenges and margin headwinds that you faced.

Yes. Look, I think, as you know, we had a pretty strong quarter at Aerospace and Gulfstream specifically. I think you'll see some mix movement in the second and third quarter, but certainly as planned, and then you'll see a really strong fourth quarter. From a delivery standpoint, we should expect that second quarter will be very similar to first quarter and then the third and fourth will be our highest, and that's per plan. So I think all of those things give us some optimism about where we are in aerospace in terms of margins and to use your word, certainly durable.

Okay. Okay. Excellent. And then maybe in combat, if you could talk a little bit about the facility in [ Mesquite ]. I know I think the release talked about some goodness in artillery and you mentioned OTS in your comments. If we've been reading the trade press over the past couple of months, there's been some customer concerns expressed about Mesquite and the ramp-up there. How should we be thinking about the the risks and the opportunities around that facility.

Yes. So I think as you've seen the customer put out a recent release on that. We've reached agreement with the Army customer on the path forward for that facility. We are very well aligned. We expect that we will be in production next year and producing artillery rounds for them and for the foreseeable future. So we have a very, very good path forward with the customer. And as I said, we're well aligned. So just think about that happening and coming online next year.

Next, we'll move to Ken Herbert at RBC.

I just wanted to follow up on the aerospace comments. It sounds like, Danny, when you think about some of the production coming out of Israel on some of your programs, how has that been impacted and is that a potential risk as we think about sort of the next few quarters?

Yes. So as I mentioned, all of the airplanes that we delivered in Q1, we had received a fair bit ago, and we're -- we completed them over the quarter and delivered. So we weren't impacted this quarter. I think we could see a small impact the longer this goes on. They're still producing those airplanes ready for us to complete, but we could see some minor impact. And as you know, that's on the G280.

Great. And then maybe, Kim, really nice cash generation in the quarter. Can you give any comments maybe around any onetime advances or other items that could have been supported some of the upside in the quarter and how we think about specifically then the progression here into the second and third quarter as cash steps down relative to the strong first quarter.

Sure. First, let me start out with -- and I think I mentioned in my remarks that it was really outperformance on our own expectations across the business units. If we think of our 10 business units, I think they all exceeded expectations. And so that was really great performance. When I think about customer advances specifically, they sort of come with the business. So it wasn't anything of terrible significance from that standpoint. And certainly, anything that we got from an advanced standpoint was planned. So I would say this was more outperformance against our expectations for the quarter, which does mean moving some of the cash from second quarter into the first quarter. So as I mentioned, cash will be positive, but down in the quarters to follow, but very strong for the year. And we're certainly looking at the cash conversion rate for the year in terms of is it possible that we could exceed 100%, and we'll see where we go there, too.

We'll move next to Ron Epstein at Bank of America.

So Danny, a quick question for you. We've seen, I guess, the DOW putting pressure on some contractors to make investments for, how do I say, the promise of future volume. Have you seen that? Have you guys had to make some investments upfront? And how are you handling that, particularly in the munitions and the defense consumable area?

Yes. So in particular, for munitions, we have been investing. We've been investing in artillery capability, solid rocket motors, energetics and some of the down components to support the missile primes. So we have been doing that and are continuing to do that, and we're fully committed to making sure that we're part of the solution as it relates to the munitions issue. And as you know well, we've been investing for a long time on the marine side, and we anticipate that continuing for a number of years. So I don't know that I would necessarily say that we saw pressure from the administration. I think we've been investing because we see that the demand is there and the need is there and the threat environment is dictating that, and that has been happening for a while with us.

Got you. Got you. And then maybe just shifting to marine. There's been discussion about this from class battleship. When would you expect some more details on that, a possible down select or -- as outsiders looking in, when do you think we could learn more about it?

Yes. Look, I think we're in the very early stages of that. We're working with the partner on doing some of the detailed design now. I know that the administration wants to move as quickly as possible on it. And -- but it's just a little early now for us to be able to define exact time lines, but we're part of that process today, but it's in the early stages.

We'll take our next question from David Strauss at Wells Fargo.

I wanted to ask about Mission Systems. I think, Dan, I heard you said it was up around 12% in the quarter. I think the business has been flat to down for quite a while. Now you had some programs rolling off. What was driving the -- what's driving the growth there? And maybe touch on the growth outlook from here and what that might mean for margins overall for technologies.

Yes. Look, I think Mission Systems has done an excellent job of transitioning from what we term legacy programs into very highly differentiated systems that are in demand. And if you look at where they have invested and focus a lot of their attention over the last several years. And as they look forward, it's in areas that are very much aligned with the administration's priorities. So I think strategic deterrent unmanned systems, proliferated space and contested space, encryption, modernization, next-generation command and control and precision munitions.

So I think all of those things given the alignment with some of the administration's priorities and where Mission Systems has focused their attention, it bodes well for them in the future. And I'm not sure that margins were at 12.6% that you mentioned, but we'll come back to you, I think they're even a little higher than that. So -- and we're continuing to be bullish about where we think they can be.

I was -- I think you said the growth at Mission Systems [indiscernible] above 12%, yes, that's right.

Yes. Yes. The growth -- sorry, the growth was at 12%. That's right. And -- yes, and we feel good about the growth in that part of the portfolio going forward based on all the things I just mentioned.

Okay. Great. And Kim. In terms of the CapEx step-up this year, your updated thoughts on your ability to kind of recover that through working capital over the near term?

Yes. I mean it's certainly -- as we continue to invest throughout the year, it certainly has an impact on our cash flow, and that's what we're evaluating as it impacts the quarter, but we're certainly driving to get our working capital off the balance sheet to offset the increase in CapEx.

We'll take our next question from Myles Walton at Wolfe Research.

Danny, you mentioned 1Q representing the highest output for [indiscernible] at Aerospace. And so where does capacity currently fit for large cabin production at this point on an annual basis. I noticed in the fourth quarter of last year, you had a pretty material step-up in CapEx. And so I imagine you're expanding capacity. So maybe if you can just update us on the trajectory to get to whatever capacity you're targeting?

Yes. So from a demand and backlog standpoint, certainly, we have enough of that to increase production on the long range and the ultra long-range family of airplanes. I think the issue here really is the supply chain and their ability to ramp up as quickly. And so in terms of overall capacity, we're putting it in place because the demand is there and it's just a matter of when the supply chain can ramp up to support that.

Okay. And in your tariff outlook, is it still contemplating $40 million or north thereof after the Supreme Court and 232 and all the other changes that have taken place?

Yes. I think when you referenced the $41 million, you're talking about what we reported in the fourth quarter of 2025. And so as we mentioned in the remarks, when you make a comparison of first quarter 2025 to first quarter of 2026, neither of those 2 quarters had any tariffs to speak of. And then we only assumed a very modest amounts or included a very modest amount of recovery in the first quarter. So really nothing material. And then going forward as it relates to these [indiscernible] tariffs, we haven't assumed anything different.

Next, we'll move to Sheila Kahyaoglu at Jefferies.

Danny, really strong start across the businesses. Is it fair to say that the 2% EPS raise is primarily related to aerospace and the 15% margins versus the 14% guide. And maybe how much of that came from 800 accretion versus maybe services, onetime items with fuel?

Yes. I think the increase in guidance is for what we see today. I mean, I think as we mentioned in the remarks, we'll have more fidelity in the second quarter to share the contribution to that increase came from more than aerospace, also from marine and a little bit from technology. So the the expectation for aerospace is that we will continue to execute the way we're executing and we'll see what that means for the second quarter.

Okay. And then sticking to Aerospace, just a follow-up. Two business jet OEMs have called out supply chain issues, Honeywell more publicly. Maybe if you could just talk about you're still growing deliveries 25% year-over-year in aerospace. Should we expect any cadence changes to deliveries for the rest of the year for these jets?

For us specifically, I think you should expect second quarter to look a lot from a cadence and delivery standpoint, a lot like what you just saw in the first quarter. And then third and fourth quarter will be higher and the fourth quarter will be our strongest both from a mix and a margin standpoint. So from a supply chain perspective, as I mentioned, they're keeping up for us.

Next, we'll move to John Godyn at Citi.

First, Marine Systems alignment with the $1.5 trillion budget, extremely clear. Can you elaborate a bit more on combat systems and technologies just in light of the priorities proposed in the $1.5 trillion.

Yes. As you mentioned, I think it's very clear where the Marine programs sit in the base budget, and we're encouraged by that. As far as combat goes, there's good support for where we are in the munition space. And as far as combat vehicles goes, they're really in a period of transition, the Army and even the Marine Corp to some extent. And so there's a fair bit of development activity going on. And so during this period, and speak specifically to next-generation main battle tank with [ M13 ] or we'll see some lower volumes on the current version of the tank.

And as it relates to [ Stryker ] program, for example, those rates are down, although that vehicle and that platform continues to be versatile and used in a number of different applications, those rates won't replace what we had seen historically, but certainly supported from an RDT&E standpoint for the programs that we're pursuing and that includes M13 and advanced reconnaissance vehicle for the Marine Corps.

From a technology standpoint, the areas we see good alignment in the budget. And as you can imagine, in their space, there are a lot more line items to look at. But in the areas, whether it's cyber and space and some of the areas I mentioned earlier for Mission Systems, we see good support in the budget for programs that we are heavily involved in.

Great. And just changing gears on capital returns and appetite for buyback. Obviously, that was sort of an interesting topic last quarter for a lot of the companies. But as we sit here today, you guys are executing well. The stock is still kind of down on the year. we'll see how this all plays out. But maybe you could just kind of remind us what the appetite and the view on buybacks may be if you continue to execute well this year and the stock is -- lags the market.

Yes. So as you know, share repurchases are highly sensitive subject in this current environment. And so I think in this atmosphere, it behooves us to continue to be cautious, and that's -- that's exactly what we've been. And as Kim mentioned, we only acquired shares to address dilution. And that's really dilution from our compensation programs, and we think that's just fair to all that are concerned. In terms of dividends, we have -- and we remain committed to paying our dividend. We've increased it for 29 straight years and really think it's part of our investment identity and part of our value proposition. So that's sort of how we see it. But we'll continue to be cautious and as we move forward.

Next, we'll go to Doug Harned at Bernstein.

Your -- in marine, you had a large increase in revenues, which you attributed mainly to Virginia Class and Columbia class. But can you separate what items led to that growth, such as sort of mix pricing, throughput improvement, additional labor funding or some specific milestones. How should we think about where that growth is coming from?

Yes. Look, I think you should think about it as a story of throughput. And I think both in terms of labor output, and so more earned hours as well as material. So both of those things. But I think what drives it? I mean, obviously, there's always a mix change quarter-to-quarter. But what has been driving that growth is throughput and that throughput is both labor and material.

So when you look at the throughput now, how do you see this as sort of getting on the way to the goal of, say, 2 deliveries per year for Virginia class, that target that's been so difficult to progress against over time.

Sorry, can you repeat that? How are we doing towards the delivery of 2 per year? Is that the question?

Yes, it is. Progressing towards that, yes.

Yes. So we are progressing towards that. I won't get into the specific rates that we're currently producing at. But suffice to say that it's up significantly over last year already. And the path to 2 Virginias and 1 Columbia per year. I can't predict the exact timing, but we are on the way there. And certainly, that is the target. But I don't think it's prudent to get into specific rates over this call.

So Audra, I think we have time for one more question.

And that question will come from Scott Mikus at Melius Research.

Jim, very nice results. Just a couple of quick questions on Colombia [indiscernible] 2, Virginia Block VI contract. Just wondering when you're expecting that to be awarded and then also going back to Rob's question earlier on the supply chain in, is there any change that you or the Navy could dual source the steam turbine on the Columbia program to improve supply chain resilience?

Yes. So as it relates to Block VI and [indiscernible] 2, we have had and have been in ongoing and detailed discussions with the Navy on that, and we'll update you in more detail when we have something to report, but that continues to proceed, and we're in detailed discussions, and we've only assumed that it will come in due course. As it relates to -- sorry, remind me your second question?

Is there a possibility that you or the Navy could seek to dual source the steam turbine on the Columbia [indiscernible] just to improve supply chain resilience.

Yes. Look, I think there's been some activity with the Navy over the last several years on adding some capacity to be able to build turbine generators. And so they've been the focus of that activity, and I think that is -- as I mentioned, some of the challenges with single-source suppliers, you can conclude which some of those are, that's an area that is very critical to the overall success of the of the submarine enterprise. So the Navy has been working on that for a little while now.

Well, thank you, everyone, for joining our call today. Please refer to the General Dynamics website for the first quarter earnings release and highlights presentation. If you have additional questions, I can be reached at (703) 876-3152.

And this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, and welcome to the General Dynamics Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. Please note this event is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the conference over to Nicole Shelton, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the General Dynamics Fourth Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Any forward-looking statements made today represent our estimates regarding the company's outlook. These estimates are subject to some risks and uncertainties.

Additional information regarding these factors is contained in the company's 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings. We will also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. For additional disclosures about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliations to comparable GAAP measures, please see the slides that accompany this webcast, which are available on the Investor Relations page of our website, investorrelations.gd.com.

On the call today are Phebe Novakovic, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Danny Deep, President; and Kim Kuryea, Chief Financial Officer. I will now turn the call over to Phebe.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for being with us. Earlier this morning, we reported fourth quarter earnings of $4.17 per diluted share on revenue of $14.379 billion, operating earnings of $1.52 billion and net earnings of $1.143 billion.

To briefly summarize, on a quarter-over-quarter basis, Revenue is up 7.8% and operating earnings are up 2%. Net earnings and diluted earnings per share are relatively flat to the year ago quarter, which you may recall was a terrific quarter. It included some significant onetime items, which drove unusually high margins, but more about that later.

The sequential comparisons are quite attractive. Here, we beat the prior quarter's revenue by 11.4% and operating earnings by 9.1%, net earnings by 7.9% and fully diluted EPS by $0.29. Full year numbers are absolutely terrific. Revenue is up 10.1%.

Operating earnings are up 11.7%. Net earnings are up 11.3% and fully diluted EPS is up 13.4%. The -- both revenue and operating earnings were up for each of the segments, led by Marine Systems and Aerospace with revenue growth of 16.6% and 16.5%, respectively. They also led the parade in operating earnings with Marine Systems up 25.9% and aerospace up 19.3% for the year. All of this follows terrific revenue and earnings growth in 2024 over 2023. It would appear that we beat analyst consensus for both the year and the quarter.

So let's move on to the business units. First, Aerospace. In Aerospace, for the year, we experienced continuing growth of both revenue and earnings, continuing strong demand for Gulfstream aircraft. Overall strength in Gulfstream service business and continued growth and performance improvement at Jet Aviation.

In the quarter, Aerospace had revenue of $3.788 billion and earnings of $481 million. This represents a 1.2% increase in revenue but $104 million decrease in operating earnings on a quarter-over-quarter basis. While the earning numbers are very good on a stand-alone basis, they do not compare favorably to a standout fourth quarter in the prior year, aided by a number of discrete positive items that were significant increments to earnings. However, the sequential numbers are very positive with a 17.1% increase in revenue, coupled with an 11.9% increase in operating earnings.

Importantly, for the year, Aerospace revenue of $13.1 billion is 16.5% greater than 2024. This is on top of a 30.5% growth in 2024 over 2023. Revenue growth was driven in large part by the delivery of 158 new aircraft, which is 22 more than a year ago. Earnings of $1.75 billion are up 19.3% over 2024.

So let's talk a little about demand. It was a strong quarter boarding on exceptional. Aerospace had a book-to-bill of 1.3x in the quarter and Gulfstream alone had an aircraft book-to-bill of 1.4x, even as deliveries increased significantly in the quarter. Orders exceeded our internal plan.

The delivery of the G700 and G800 and their performance in customer hands is driving increased demand for them, which we experienced in the quarter. We continue to see improved interest across all models in all sales jurisdictions. Interestingly, the overall number of prospects in all areas continues to increase.

Let me turn the discussion over to Danny for his perspective on the quarter.

Thank you. So I want to spend some time exploring the $104 million decrease in operating earnings on a quarter-over-quarter basis. As you might imagine, there were lots of puts and takes in the quarter. The margin issue was the G600 product line, which had $75 million less in earnings. That was attributable to the delivery of 3 fewer aircraft in the quarter, a $21 million variance in liquidated damages and favorable settlements in the prior year's quarter, some higher overhead than in the prior quarter and the imposition of tariffs in this quarter, but not in the fourth quarter of 2024.

If we adjust for these items, the earnings and margin rate on the G600 are very similar for both quarters. On a quarter over year ago quarter basis, earnings on the G500 and Gulfstream Services and Jet Aviation were down modestly.

Now in all of this, there are some good news. The earnings for the G 800 more than replaced the G650 earnings on the same basis. The G700 also experienced higher earnings despite 2 fewer deliveries. Obviously, margins are improving nicely on that product. Phebe?

So let's move on to the defense businesses. First, Combat Systems. Combat Systems had revenue of $2.5 billion for the quarter, 5.8% more than the year ago quarter. Earnings of $381 million are also up 7% on a 10 basis point operating margin improvement. Operating margin of 15% is very good. The sequential growth of revenue and earnings at 12.6% and 13.7% is even stronger with particular strength at OTF.

For the full year, revenue of $9.2 billion is up 2.8% and earnings of $1.33 billion are up 4.3% as a result of a 20 basis point increase in operating margins as compared to a year ago. All in all, a very nice profile, but the real story is in the order book. Combat saw robust order intake for the fourth quarter, resulting in book-to-bill of 4.3:1. Orders came from across the portfolio with notable awards and munitions, but exceptional intake in wheels and tracked vehicle programs at European Land Systems. The book-to-bill for the year is 2.1x. We -- this all rolls up to a total backlog of $27.2 billion and total estimated contract value of almost $42 billion. This positions combat systems very well for the future.

In short, this group had a very solid year operationally with expanded margins, explosive order activity and a strong order pipeline as we go forward. But before I turn to Marine Systems, I'd like to ask Danny to provide some additional color.

So let me give you some additional detail on several key awards. For some time, we have been talking about the strong demand signals we are observing, particularly in our international portfolio. And as Phebe mentioned, that demand transitioned to some significant awards in the fourth quarter. In Germany, we received 2 awards for more than $4 billion for our Eagle tactical vehicles.

In Norway and the United Kingdom, we were awarded $600 million for our bridges. And in Canada, we received awards for $640 million for light armored vehicles and additional logistics vehicles. Altogether, a nice order distribution, both geographically and across our product portfolio. Here in the United States, working closely with the U.S. Army, we continue to make good progress on the acceleration of the next-generation M1 E3 main battle tank. All of this provides a strong base for continued strength at combat. I'll pass it back to Phebe.

So turning to Marine. Once again, our shipbuilding group had exceptional revenue growth. Marine Systems revenue of $4.8 billion is up 21.7% against the year ago quarter. All the shipyards were up, but the submarine programs and electric boats were the real drivers of I am very pleased to report that operating earnings of $345 million are up 72.5% on a 210 basis point improvement in operating margin.

To be fair, the fourth quarter 2024 was the group's PORs operating earnings in that year. Nevertheless, 7.2% last quarter represents a meaningful improvement and real progress in submarine construction.

Sequentially, the numbers are much the same. Revenue increased 17.6% and operating earnings 18.6%. For the full year, Marine revenue of $16.7 billion is up 16.6% and earnings of $1.18 billion are up 25.9%. So the story of revenue growth continues with some improvement in operating margin and measurable improvement in productivity.

Once again, the operating metrics tell us that we have, in fact, increased our productivity at all shipyards. Danny, feel free to interject your thoughts on marine from an operating perspective?

As Phebe just mentioned, we have seen demonstrable increases in productivity and throughput at our shipyards. Electric Boat, as you all know, we have made considerable investments over the last several years, and those investments have enabled a significant increase in output. One key measure of output is submarine tonnage produced and electric boat is up 13% over last year.

At Bath Iron Works, we are seeing consistent ship over ship learning. And at NASCO, we are seeing a very positive trend in terms of schedule variances against plan for each successive ship we built. Our priority in the Marine Group is to remain laser focused on execution and continue to accelerate production, and we are seeing good progress on that front.

And lastly, technologies. It was a solid, but no growth quarter with revenue of $3.24 billion, about the same as the year ago quarter.

Operating earnings in the quarter of $290 million are down $29 million on an 80 basis point decrease in operating margin. The full year comparisons are somewhat better. Revenue at $13.5 billion is up 2.6%. Earnings of $1.28 billion are up 1.3% on a very similar operating margin.

Let me say that these businesses did very well in an extremely difficult market. The long continuing resolution was particularly impactful and the examination of all contracts by the Department of Government Efficiency hurt growth and slowed contracting activity early in the year. Nevertheless, these businesses perseveres and came through it all on a very good basis.

Given all of that, the group had very nice order activity for the year. Total orders for the group reached $15.9 billion, resulting in a book-to-bill of $0.91 for the quarter and 1.2x for the year. This left the group with an increased year-over-year backlog at $16.7 billion and total estimated contract value of $49.9 billion, pretty well done under the circumstances.

Danny will give you a little bit more here.

I'll just give a little more color on how this group is positioned going forward. Phebe mentioned the very solid backlog to end the year. This, combined with a robust order pipeline of close to $120 billion of qualified opportunities certainly present a healthy market picture as we look forward.

In addition, at Mission Systems, the transition from legacy programs is complete, allowing them to focus where they have deep domain expertise. This expertise aligns well with their customers' priorities in areas, including encryption, subsea warfare and strategic deterrent. The market outlook, coupled with very solid win and capture rates positions this group for durable growth beyond this year.

I'll turn it back to Phebe.

Thanks. And let me ask Kim to provide details on our cash performance for the quarter and the year, overall order activity and backlog and any other items you might like to address. I'll then come back to discuss our thoughts on 2026.

Thank you, Phebe, and good morning. Let me first start with orders and backlog. Our order activity and backlog continued to be a strong story and a highlight for us in 2025. We achieved an overall book-to-bill ratio for the year of 1.5:1, even as revenue grew by 10%.

Let me go through the full year book-to-bill rates for 2025 at each of the segments. First, the Defense segment. Combat Systems achieved a book-to-bill of 2.1x driven by continued robust demand at each business, particularly at European Land Systems where we received over $10 billion in new awards. Marine Systems achieved a book-to-bill of 1.7x with each of our shipyards receiving awards for additional ships in 2025. And technologies achieved 1.2x on nights award activity at both GDIT and Mission Systems.

Moving to Aerospace. Gulfstream finished the year really strong with our second best orders quarter since second quarter 2018. The full year dollar-based book-to-bill for the segment was 1.2x, marking the fifth consecutive year, achieving a book-to-bill greater than 1. The robust demand across our portfolio resulted in finishing the year with a record total backlog of $118 billion, an astonishing 30% increase over last year.

Total estimated contract value, which includes options and IDIQ contracts, ended the year also at a record level of $179 billion, a 24% increase from last year. It's interesting to note that each of the defense segments ended the year at record levels for both of these metrics and aerospace ended at levels not seen since the announcement of the G650 in 2008.

Turning now to our cash performance for 2025. I think it's worth noting how we started the year. As a reminder, at the beginning of 2025, we were expecting a free cash flow conversion rate between 80% and 85% as we work through some working capital challenges. As we progress through the year, we upped that projection to the low 90s, while I'm happy to report that we ended 2025 in line with our third quarter expectations.

Let's get to the specifics. The fourth quarter was another strong cash quarter with operating cash flow of $1.6 billion, which brought us to $5.1 billion of operating cash flow for 2025, $1 billion higher than 2024. After considering capital expenditures, our free cash flow for the year was just shy of $4 billion for a cash conversion rate of 94%.

Working capital for the year improved nicely over our original plan due to stronger-than-expected collections and inventory reductions at Gulfstream. While all of our business units contributed nicely to our cash flow for the year, during the fourth quarter, Combat Systems and Aerospace have particularly strong cash generation.

As we signaled, capital expenditures were up significantly in the fourth quarter to $609 million, which adds up to $1.2 billion spent for the full year. For 2025, capital expenditures were in line with our expectations and up almost 30% over 2024.

In the fourth quarter, we also paid $490 million to purchase assets that were originally under leased. Combined, we invested 3.1% of revenue on assets to support the facilities and fixtures that enable the continued growth of our businesses. During the fourth quarter, we were in the commercial paper market to support our liquidity during the government shutdown, but ended the year with no commercial paper outstanding.

Our cash balance as of year-end was $2.3 billion with a net debt position of $5.7 billion, down $1.4 billion from 2024.

Moving on to our 2026 cash flow projections. We expect to return to our free cash flow conversion rate goal of 100% of net income. This is based on particularly strong operating cash flow, offsetting elevated levels of the continued investment across our businesses.

Capital expenditures are expected to increase over $900 million or 79% from 2025. Our capital expenditures will equal between 3.5% and 4% of sales, as we continue to invest especially in our shipyards to accelerate production and meet future demand.

The free cash flow for the year breaks down as follows. The quarters are expected to each be positive and grow slightly with the fourth quarter still representing the largest, but much less of a climb as compared to 2025 plan. We have $1 billion of notes coming due in 2026. Our plan assumes these notes will be refinanced, but this is something that we will continue to evaluate as time approaches.

Turning to interest. Our net interest expense in the fourth quarter was $63 million, bringing interest expense for the full year to $314 million. That compares to $76 million and $324 million in the respective 2024 period. Under the assumption that we refinance the maturing notes, we expect interest expense to increase to approximately $340 million due to higher expected interest rates on the new debt.

Wrapping up with income taxes. Our 2025 full year effective tax rate ended up at 17.5%, consistent with our guidance. Looking ahead to 2026, we expect the tax rate to remain at a similar level. Additionally, our cash taxes should remain around the same level with both years receiving some benefit from the R&D capitalization recovery.

That concludes my remarks. I'll turn it back over to you, Phebe.

Thank you, Kim. So let me provide our operating forecast for 2026 with some color around our outlook for each business group and then the company-wide rollup.

In 2026, we expect Aerospace revenue to be about $13.6 billion, up around $500 million over 2025. Operating margin is expected to be increased to around 14%. This should result in operating earnings of around $1.9 billion. Gulfstream deliveries will be 160 with a little upside. This is fairly close to 2025.

In Combat Systems, we expect revenue in the range of $9.6 billion to $9.7 billion, coupled with an operating margin of 14.1%, which should lead to improved earnings around $1.36 billion at the midpoint of the revenue range. As I noted earlier, the Marine Group has been on a remarkable growth story. It will continue in 2026. Our outlook for this year anticipates revenue in a range of $17.3 billion and $17.7 billion with a 30 basis point improvement at the operating margin line. This should result in operating earnings around $1.3 billion.

In technologies, 2026 revenue is expected to be up to $13.8 billion. Operating margins are expected to decrease around 30 basis points to 9.2%. We continue to see long-term low single-digit growth from the group and continued industry-leading margins. The EBITDA margin is quite impressive. This should leave operating earnings of about $1.3 billion.

So for 2026 company-wide, we expect to see revenue in the range of $54.3 billion to $54.8 billion, we anticipate operating margins of 10.4%, up 20 basis points from 2025 actuals. This should leave us with operating earnings around $5.7 billion at the midpoint of the anticipated revenue range. All of this rolls up to an EPS forecast between $16.10 and $16.20. None of this contemplates or includes any capital deployment.

On a quarter basis, if one were to assume an average of $4 per quarter, the first quarter would be off $0.40, a second off $0.30, a third off $0.10 and the fourth up $0.80 on a typical fourth quarter increased volume.

To wrap up, as we go into 2026, we feel very good about our business and the prospects for the year. We will do our level best to execute and beat the forecast we have given you. As always, we will be laser focused on operations. Nicole call back to you.

Thank you, Phebe. As a reminder, we ask participants to ask 1 question and 1 follow-up so that everyone has a chance to participate. Operator, could you please remind participants how to enter the queue?

[Operator Instructions]. We will take our first question from Seth Seifman at JPMorgan.

Wanted to start off asking maybe about aerospace profitability. And if you could work about the market patron here through the photo transitions to 700 and 800 and 600 and going away. There's some market for this year.

Seth breaking up a bit. Are you asking about margins on...

Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me a little bit better now?

Yes, that's better. Thank you. If you say it again because we got every other word.

Cool, Aerospace profitability, I guess, now that we're through the product transitions, there's some improvement expected in '26 here, but I think the hope is that those margins become more robust. And so how do you think about getting there? And is it the supply chain that's the chief impediment as we're seeing in some other places as well? And what are the plans to mitigate that?

Yes, I can take that. This is Danny here. Yes, look, we think margins are going to continue to improve. As you said, we're up about 70 basis points in '26 versus '24 I think we'll see some improved pricing, improved efficiencies, so lower overheads and some lower research and development costs, so that will be helpful. I think right now, we have headwinds around tariffs. Some of the cost increases that we've incurred in the supply chain happened before we're able to reflect them in our increased pricing and we do have the opportunity to increase pricing, but that's often in period subsequent to when the cost increase has been incurred from the supply chain. But we continue to expect improvement there.

Okay. Okay. Great. And then maybe if you can update us on your expectations for future submarine contracts for both Colombia and Virginia, that would be great in terms of maybe timing and in terms of how they are different than in the past?

So to be quite honest, we don't know. We know that both of those contracts are out there. The demand is there and it's simply up to the government when they come to us. So we don't know very much. But when we do, we'll tell you.

We'll move next to Doug Harned at Bernstein.

Staying on Marine. The revenues are -- revenues look great. the -- clearly, it appears your throughput is going way up. The Navy has been pushing so long to get throughput up, get back -- get to the to Virginia class for year rate? And how would you describe Marine now in terms of kind of closing that gap on where the Navy ultimately wants to be here, given that you've got so much money in the budget right now.

So I'd say we are continuing to improve efficiency retention at Electric Boat. Our throughput, as you know, is up and proficiency is really key as is retention. The supply chain remains the gating item, and we have seen significant improvement in some areas, but we still have some suppliers and parts of the supply chain that are at risk.

The government has been heavily investing in the supply chain, which is why we've seen some improvement, but we need to focus and do more, particularly with respect to sole source suppliers where they are is bottle mix. So as the supply chain begins to improve and increase their productivity and by the way, the quality still remains high. not an issue. It's simply really about the constraints that they have in capacity and getting their throughput up.

But once they do, that will improve that will be the next big step in improving our productivity throughput and the ability to further accelerate deliveries to the customer.

And then on Combat, I mean the backlog story was really strong. And clearly, European demand is very high. And our assumption would be that, that kind of demand growth would continue -- when you look at the scale of the backlog increase you're seeing there, how long will it take? Or what are your expectations and the ability to convert that to revenue growth over time?

So we'll see some increase in revenue growth this year. And accelerating into '27 when we begin to move into production of some of these programs in Europe. This year, we'll be largely planning and engineering R&D work and then as we move into production. So we have a pretty smooth path. We believe to transition from our engineering work into production, and now we've got the resources, property, plant and equipment personnel to execute.

We'll go next to Gautam Khanna at TD Cowen.

Danny, you made a you made a reference to the tariff impact at Gulfstream at Arrow. I was wondering how much you guys absorbed in '25? And what are you expecting in '26, if you could frame that for us?

Yes, sure Sure. So the impact of tariffs in 2025 was $41 million. But let me help you a little bit with tariff as best as I can. So there's a cash outlay when the tariff is imposed when the material is coming into the country. And -- but the cost to earnings happens at a different point.

As you know, we recognize revenue and earnings when we actually deliver the plane. And that's also when we recognize the tariff impact. And so there's this other element where how much of that can we get back in terms of some sort of reimbursement, and that's difficult to predict. So the tariffs that we are going to see in 2026 are largely based on cash that we expended in 2025. It will be higher than in 2025, so higher than the $41 million, but those tariffs are contemplated in our 2026 margins.

Got you. That's helpful. And if we're going to shift to Marine, the increase in 18% sequentially, how much is that at the yard itself in terms of productivity versus in the supply chain? Because historically, you guys have called out the supply chain kind of being a constraint. I'm just wondering how that has improved relative to before.

Yes. Look, I mean, I don't know how to apportion both of those impacts, but they're both impactful on the margins. I think as Phebe said, when we get the supply chain operating at a full cadence and at full efficiency, that will have an impact on margins, and then equally so, our own productivity and focus on execution as we continue to improve and we're on that path, we should expect to see improvements in margins.

We think those improvements will be durable, and steady, as you've seen from 2024 to 2025, we'll see continued strength there and increases.

We'll take our next question from Scott Deutsche at Deutsche Bank.

Kim, can you walk us through what drives free cash flow conversion to the 100% range in despite that big step-up in CapEx.

Yes, sure. So we're really looking at basically strong operating performance out of the business units. -- and that's the major driver. Obviously, we are increasing CapEx to a significant extent, but that's factored in. And we -- our goal is to be at 100%, and that's what we're targeting for 2026 and, quite frankly, into the next couple of years.

Okay. Just to clarify, is the Navy offering some working capital support for the Navy CapEx?

Not at this point. Not to our knowledge.

Okay. And then, Danny, given the strong orders and demand at Gulfstream as well as the strength in the production and supply chain side, I guess, why wouldn't the delivery growth in 2026 be higher than this 1% increase desk in another way, what's the limiting factor on delivery growth at Gulfstream?

So well, let me take that on. We have provided you with the deliveries that we are quite comfortable at the moment that we can execute. -- completion, final test delivery tend to be the long poles in the tent. -- but we are working to expand our completion capacity through increased efficiency and where necessary additional tooling and fixtures, but let's just put this detail perspective.

In '24, we had a 3.5% increase in revenues and from -- in '25, we had 16.5%. That's in the hard-to-do category. So what we're doing right now is working to absorb that growth while increasing margins. So we believe this is a prudent plan. It's focused on meeting our obligations to our customers and expanding our productivity.

We'll move next to Sheila Kahyaoglu at Jefferies

Great quarter. Maybe -- just on your last comments, given we're on aviation, the order momentum has been superb. Can you talk a little bit about what's driving that maybe by geography? Was it bonus depreciation? Or is it the new model introductions you have going in?

I think a number of factors have driven the increased demand. Certainly, our new products have -- the 800 led the demand followed by the 700 and the 600. I suspect bonus depreciation was a factor as is the strength of various economies. We -- I would also tell you that the pipeline is active and growing, and we have good activity. So we like what we see on the demand side.

Great. And if I could follow up maybe on the capital deployment comments. How do we think about JD Combat and what's going on there. There's been a lot of press about capacity in missions and a how are you thinking about capacity coming online for combat and how that factors into the 3.5% of CapEx to sales ratio over the next few years?

So the majority of our half at least of the CapEx for this coming year is that electric boat -- we have been investing in Combat Systems across the portfolio, and we'll continue to do so. On the munition side, we have capacity and have executed that capacity up in Northeast Pennsylvania at 36 rounds a month for the last 12 months. We've increased the load pack and established a load pack assembly facility and with the capacity of 50,000 rounds a month and we've increased our propellent capacity.

So all in all, we are -- we see some instances of need for additional investment, and we'll make that accordingly.

We'll take our next question from Matt Akers at BNP.

I guess, Phebe, historically, you guys have usually guided ex capital deployment. And I think probably a lot of us just go ahead and stick it in our models anyway. But I guess, given some of the pressure we've seen on the industry on on buybacks. I guess can you comment on maybe whether we should be a little bit more cautious on assuming that this year?

So our capital deployment strategy for the last number of years has been to continue to invest in our growing business, has resulted in increased backlog. So we think -- we believe and plan on additional investments in our portfolio to ensure that we're able to efficiently execute that backlog and provide for the demands and needs of our customer.

We have -- for -- on the dividend, we paid a dividend for over 25 years. And every year, in March, the Board decides the extent of any increase. But we're committed to the dividend, and we never comment on share repurchase. I note that it's not particularly popular right now. So our habit and pension for not commenting on share repurchases, I believe appropriate. But I think it's our strategy remains heavily invested in the business because it's justified given the demand and the backlog.

.

Got it. And then I guess just one more on kind of the CapEx with the step this year. I mean, should we think of this as kind of a multiyear investment that needs to be made? Or is this more something that will kind of revert to more normalized levels in 207 and beyond?

We'll continue to invest year-over-year in our businesses because we have a long-term growth there, and it's embedded in our backlog. We believe that that's appropriate. So the investments year-over-year in CapEx may vary a bit, but you should expect that strategy going forward.

We'll move next to Myles Walton at Wolfe Research.

You've previously given medium-term margin expansion sort of color for aerospace. I was curious if you could maybe update those margin outlook targets.

We believe there's margin improvement headroom at Gulfstream, and we'll continue to pursue that. It's not about necessarily pursuing growth that's in our backlog, but it's about execution, execution, execution. That's throughout the whole company. It's really a strategy, Gulfstream and Jet Aviation are no different. So we'll continue to push margin and we see high probability of improved margins over time.

Is mid- to high teens still reasonable for '27?

I think as we execute this backlog, we'll continue to push margins -- we've there lots of puts and takes in this business, as you well know, and how all of the costs and pricing opportunities play out over the next couple of years will drive it. But you should expect significant and consistent margin improvement over time throughout our plan period.

And is the combat growth in '26 absorbing much of any headwind on the AJAX program and if you could size that?

I wouldn't say there's any headwind on the AJAX program. We have a pause in the fielding, but we are highly, highly confident in this vehicle. It has been tested for tens of thousands of miles and we have great confidence in it.

We'll take our next question from Robert Stallard at Vertical Research.

Be, given some of the geopolitical activities over the last few weeks, I was wondering if you've seen any change in the conversation with your European customers with regards to buying U.S.-sourced equipment rather than stuff you actually make in Europe?

We have not. But let me remind you that the biggest source of business that we have in Europe are European-based and almost fully sourced European businesses. They're indigenous businesses that we've had for, in some cases, over 25 years. And they are manned, run, lead and sourced in Europe.

Okay. And then secondly, on the aerospace side. There's been concerns over the last few months, perhaps over this AI bubble. I was wondering if there has been any notable change in your backlog here and whether there has been any increase in AI-related orders over the last, say, 6 to 12 months.

You mean at Gulfstream, AI-driven from AI-driven we haven't seen any of that. I'd say the demand is across the portfolio, very heavy in the Fortune 500, high net worth and 400 to 500 companies, high net worth individuals. But there's no one particular segment that jumps out or as an anomalous.

We'll go next to Ron Epstein at Bank of America.

Just a couple of quick ones here for you, Phebe. Battleship, how are you thinking about Battleship, -- that's a lot of stuff going on. How do you think about that with your ship business?

Bath is participating in the design with other industry partners on that battleship that's just recently announced. So I think it will be quite some time in playing out, but it really is at its beginning design phases. So really too soon to project anything in terms of timing.

Is there going to be a down sit? Have they boarded it? I mean, is it -- I don't know how to think about it? Is it going to be like a...

I don't believe we know the competition strategy right now.

Got it. Okay. Fair enough. And then is this too simple of a way to think about Gulfstream. So let me just -- everybody has been asking this question. So sorry, apologies do one, but in kind of really simple terms, you guys have brought to market sort of a refreshed fleet of kit, right? So a bunch of new airplanes. That's driving demand, right, because you got the newest stuff out there. It's early days in many of these programs. So as you go down the learning curve, naturally, you should get some margin expansion. So as we walk out over the next several years, naturally should we see margins improve because you just get better at building the new airplanes. And you presumably -- not to put words in anybody's mouth, I'm not going to launch anything immediately. So you've got this stuff maturing, margins go up demand stays good, because they got a new product out there. Is that the simple way to think about it.

On, I think you have quite eloquently defined and expressed our strategy. Our new airplanes are driving demand. We continue to come down our learning curves. The supply chain is improving as the way to go, but it's definitely better than it was and all of that will drive additional margin improvement measured over time.

But the investments we made years ago in these new products are coming to fruition and the market is benefiting from this whole new family of clean sheet airplane. Nobody else has anything like it. We worked hard, we earned it. This isn't something that just happened overnight. There's a lot of long, thoughtful targeted R&D and capital investments.

Got it. Got it. And then maybe if I can just slip in one last one. You've been running the company for a while and been on the hill, been all over. How do you think about some of the stuff coming out of the administration directing defense companies on what -- how to deploy capital. I mean as a leader of an organization that's deployed capital arguably pretty prudently over the years. How do you think about that?

Well, our strategy over the last several years is aligned with the administration's commitment to an intent to increase production, and we are an increase and the demand signals are very strong. So we have been investing in our business, and we'll continue to do so. I think that's the best way to think about it.

We'll take our next question from John Godyn at Citi.

I wanted to keep getting into the trend in munitions. You had so many positive call-outs in the prepared remarks. Obviously, we've seen a lot of growth in the weapon systems and munition subsegment within Combat Systems. And I get a lot of questions on how long that strength might last where production rates and run rate revenue can go over multiple years and what incremental margins on munitions revenue like -- look like versus overall Combat Systems margins. So I know you might not want to give all that detail, but I was hoping we could just dialogue a bit about the trajectory, just to get a better handle on the shape of the business over the coming years.

We have a good business in munitions. We are a supplier to many of the missile companies. So we expect that the demand signals that the administration in outside the U.S. have been issuing our manifesting in contract. We expect that to continue.

Stores and inventories are low, and those inventories need to be replaced. So we are well positioned. We'll continue to work our margins as we always do. This is a business that tends to be in the 14%, 15% margin range. We expect that to continue with some variability. It's all about their operating leverage and their ability to come down their learning curves and control their costs.

Okay. That's very helpful. And if I could just ask one more on supply chain and Gulfstream. And I know there's been some dialogue on that already on the call. But specifically, with commercial aerospace production volumes ramping, do you think there's any knock-on impact on biz jet supply chain, whether it's demand for materials, subcomponents, labor, et cetera? Anything there to think through?

Well, labor is not a problem. Are you asking whether we see material issues in the supply chain?

With falling ramping production dramatically Airbus as well if they're not on...

I say that solid well -- let me answer this. I say that some of the suppliers have ramped more successfully than others. We know the ones who still have some work to go. They're committed to making the investments to increase their capacity. So it's really about capacity throughput and the causes for that constrained environment and some of those suppliers is really just about the investment in capacity, training a workforce. But quality remains good, which is critical.

So Andre, I think we have time for 1 more question.

That question comes from Andre Madrid of BTIG.

I wanted to really nail down into international a bit. Could you maybe tell us what the book-to-bill was for the quarter and for the year. And I mean, how are you thinking about demand moving into '26? I know we've talked about it in ease of the individual segments. But is it fair to say that growth in international will probably outpace the broader business in the next year?

Are you talking about Combat Systems primarily because there is none in Marine group, Gulf.

Yes. Yes.

Yes, I can answer that. Yes. So I think, as Kim said, we had a book-to-bill in the fourth quarter specifically at European land systems of 4 -- over 4 to -- so that was by far the biggest impact. And I think as you think about it in the context of combat, which is where the bulk of our international activity is European Land Systems will be the fastest grower by far. And so we expect to see really, really positive growth over the plan period, and you'll start to see the real acceleration, as Phebe said earlier, in '27 and beyond. Some of these are long-cycle programs. But certainly, at European Land Systems, we expect to grow quickly.

Got it. And then if I could squeeze one more in. I know back at USA in October, you highlighted some of the demand that you're seeing around UGVs, we've seen them being used to extreme effect in Eastern Europe right now. What do you think the market looks like for unmanned ground? I mean is that something that might be much more tangible in the years to come? Is there like kind of a benchmark that you guys are selling to -- for how that business might perform?

We're not setting a particular benchmark, but I would say that the U.S. Army is in a period of transition. They move to the most advanced technologically capable systems in their unmanned systems, mobile protected firepower communication in GPS environment. So we're seeing really a transition as the U.S. Army modernizes its forces. And we don't have any particular benchmarks with respect to some of the smaller areas of investment for us, but we've made those investments to support that growth, and we're quite confident that we are well positioned to support them going forward.

All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining our call today. Please refer to the General Dynamics website for the fourth quarter earnings release and highlights presentation. If you have additional questions, I can be reached at (703) 876-3152.

And this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, and welcome to the General Dynamics Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions]. Please note, this event is being recorded.

I'd now like to turn the conference over to Nicole Shelton, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the General Dynamics Third Quarter 2025 Conference Call. Any forward-looking statements made today represent our estimates regarding the company's outlook. These estimates are subject to some risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in the company's 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings. We will also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. For additional disclosures about these non-GAAP measures including reconciliations to comparable GAAP measures, please see the slides that accompany this webcast, which are available on the Investor Relations page of our website, investorrelations.gd.com. .

On the call today are Phebe Novakovic, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Danny Deep, Executive Vice President, Global Operations; and Kim Kuryea, Chief Financial Officer.

I will now turn the call over to Phebe.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for being with us. Earlier this morning, we reported earnings of $3.88 per diluted share on revenue of $12.9 billion, operating earnings of $1.3 billion and net income of $1.59 billion. Across the company, revenue increased $1.24 billion, a strong 10.6%, led by a 30.3% increase in our Aerospace segment and a 13.8% increase in Marine Systems over the year ago quarter.

Importantly, operating earnings of $1.3 billion, are up $150 million or 12.7%. Similarly, net earnings increased $129 million or 13.9% and earnings per share are up $0.53 or 15.8% over the year ago quarter. On a year-to-date basis, revenue of $38.2 billion, is up 11% over last year. Operating earnings of $3.9 billion, are up 15.7%. Net earnings of $3.07 billion, are up 16.4% and earnings per share are up 19%. As an aside, we beat consensus estimates by $0.18 on higher-than-anticipated revenue and modestly better operating margins. My reaction to the quarter is best reflected in thoughts about the sequential comparison. In the second quarter of this year, we had very good results, which were well received by investors. This quarter was even better.

The 2 quarters enjoyed similar revenue, but operating margin improved by 30 basis points, and we generated significantly higher free cash flow, as you will hear in greater detail from Kim. Robust order momentum continued in the quarter, yielding record backlog. In short, we had a superb quarter from my perspective. With that, let's move into a discussion of the operating segments. First, Aerospace. Aerospace performed very well in the quarter to say the least. It had revenue of $3.2 billion and operating earnings of $430 million with a 13.3% operating margin. Revenue is a dramatic $752 million more than last year's third quarter, a 30.3% increase. The revenue increase was led by new aircraft deliveries, higher special mission volume and the services business at both Gulfstream and Jet.

Similarly, operating earnings of $430 million show a staggering 41% increase over the year ago quarter. The 13.3% operating margin is 100 basis points better than a year ago. We delivered 39 aircraft in the quarter, 11 more deliveries than a year ago, including 13 G700. It is important to note that this is the first quarter where we had no deliveries of the high gross margin G650ER compared to 9 in the year ago quarter. We also made 3 initial deliveries of the G800 in the quarter. This plan will provide the majority of delivery growth in Q4. For the year-to-date, Aerospace revenue is up $1.82 billion, an increase of 24.2%. Operating earnings are up $386 million, an increase of 43.9%.

All very impressive, especially when the comparator year 2024 showed remarkable growth over 2023. Turning to market demand. We saw accelerated interest across all models in the third quarter led by the North American market. This led to very strong order intake and loaded the pipeline for a good fourth quarter. This remains by all accounts, a very resilient and robust market for new business aircraft. In summary, the Aerospace team had a very good quarter and look forward to a strong finish to the year. So let's move on to the defense businesses.

As a collective, we once again saw strong growth in Marine Systems and good operating performance across the portfolio. Let me walk you through each segment in turn. First, Combat Systems. Combat Systems had revenue of $2.3 billion for the quarter, a modest 1.8% increase. Earnings of $335 million, are up 3.1%, operating margins at 14.9%, are up 20 basis points over Q3 last year, demonstrating nice operating leverage.

On a sequential basis, while revenue decreased 1.4%, earnings rose 3.4% on a 70 basis point improvement in operating margin. Year-to-date, revenue of $6.7 billion is up 1.7% and earnings of $950 million are up 3.3%. Overall, demand is strong across combat, particularly in our ordinance and international combat vehicles business. Artillery orders and the missile subcomponent work we do for the Prime has increased in our ordinance business. Internationally, demand for all classes of combat vehicles across the European theater has been increasing and orders are following, particularly in those countries in which we have indigenous production. We saw robust order intake with over $4.4 billion awarded in Q3, resulting in a book-to-bill of 2:1 for the quarter. Orders came from across the portfolio and internationally, primarily Europe. Our combat system backlog at roughly $18.7 billion, reflects the strong demand.

All in all, a strong performance quarter for Combat that sets them up nicely for improved growth rates. Turning to Marine Systems. Yet again, our shipbuilding group is demonstrating strong revenue growth. Marine Systems revenue of $4.1 billion is up $497 million, 13.8% against the year ago quarter. Columbia Class Construction and Virginia Class Construction led the way with increased throughput. Operating earnings of $291 million, are up 12.8% over the year ago quarter, with a 10 basis point decrease in operating margin. However, we are seeing metrics showing improved performance across the business which should lead to improved operating margins little by little. Sequentially, results are about the same as the prior quarter. Year-to-date, Marine revenue of $11.9 billion, is up 14.7% and earnings of $832 million or up 13.2%. So across the business, we have seen rapid growth of revenue and earnings but margin performance around 7%. As I've said before, improvement here represents our most meaningful opportunity. And lastly, Technologies. It was another good quarter with revenue of $3.3 billion, which is down 1.6% over the year ago quarter. Operating earnings in the quarter of $327 million are essentially the same on a 10 basis point improvement in operating margin.

The year-to-date comparisons are better. Revenue at $10.2 billion, is up 3.5% and earnings of $987 million are up almost 5% on a 10 basis point improvement in operating margin. Order activity was particularly strong in the quarter with a book-to-bill of 1.8:1. That resulted in backlog at the end of the quarter of $16.9 billion, up $2.7 billion sequentially. Through the first 9 months, the group achieved a book-to-bill ratio of 1.3:1. This positions the group ball for better revenue growth than they have had in the last 2 years. Prospects remain strong with a large qualified funnel of more than $113 billion in opportunities that they are pursuing across the group. It is interesting to observe that our slower growing segments in more recent periods have enjoyed very robust book-to-bill this quarter and year-to-date.

That concludes my remarks about the defense businesses. Before I hand the call over to Kim, I'd like to have Danny share his observations from an operating perspective and provide additional color.

Thank you, Phebe. Let me start with Aerospace. We have seen strong performance across the board, including orders, manufacturing and deliveries as well as customer service. From an order standpoint, Phebe mentioned a robust quarter across the portfolio. To give you some additional perspective, in the first 9 months of 2025, unit orders are up 56% versus this time a year ago. From a productivity standpoint, we are seeing good learning across all our lines with manufacturing hours on the G700 and G800 coming down quarter-over-quarter throughout this year.

We have seen measurable improvement in the supply chain with on-time deliveries to pre-COVID level. And in terms of airplane deliveries, the progress has been pronounced with our delivery cadence steadily increasing. Through the first 9 months of this year, we've delivered 113 airplanes as compared to 89 airplanes for the same period in 2024. So overall, plenty to be pleased about from an operational standpoint. Turning to our Defense businesses. I'll highlight a few key items of interest. In our Marine group, at Bath Iron Works, we are seeing positive momentum in terms of ship-over-ship learning reflected in both the number of hours to produce as well as the schedule to produce them. At Electric Boat, our productivity and schedule metrics are slowly but steadily improving as we see the investments in tooling and fixtures, automation, robotics and most importantly, our shipbuilders all taking hold.

These improvements have stabilized margins and put us in a position to consistently grow them over time. With respect to the supply chain, we have seen improvements in some areas, but others are still struggling to meet the significant increase in demand. In the combat Group, we have seen considerable uptick in demand in our European operations from bridges to combat platforms, and our long-term presence and manufacturing footprint in several European countries positions us well to serve this increased demand.

In our Technologies group, we are seeing the benefits of the strategic investments that our Mission Systems business has made in differentiated defense electronics to serve priorities and strategic deterrents, subsea warfare and next-generation command and control. As we transition from legacy programs, which are nearly completed to programs with highly differentiated content, we expect to see continued growth with robust margins for this year and into the future. Across all our businesses, our continued focus on operational performance is bearing fruit as evidenced by our third quarter results, and we expect continued margin strength and strong cash generation in the future.

Let me now turn the call over to Kim to discuss relevant financial data.

Thank you, Danny, and good morning. The third quarter was another strong quarter from an orders perspective. The overall book-to-bill ratio for the company was 1.5:1. All 4 segments experienced a book-to-bill of at least 1.2x. Our Defense segment's book-to-bill was a robust 1.6x their revenue. .

Aerospace continued its momentum with a book bill of 1.3x for the second quarter in a row, even as revenue increased in both quarters. Year-to-date, the book-to-bill for the company was a solid 1.5:1. This robust order activity led to a new record level of backlog at $109.9 billion at the end of the quarter, up 19% from a year ago and 6% from last quarter. Looking at the segments. Marine and Technology each ended the quarter with a record level of backlog. Our total estimated contract value, which includes options and IDIQ contracts, also ended the quarter at a new record level of $167.7 billion with each of the Defense segments reaching new highs. Moving to our cash performance.

It's an even better story than orders. Last quarter, we discussed our efforts to drive cash to the left given our back-end loaded cash forecast for 2025. Well, we realized the fruits of those efforts in the quarter. Our business units really outperformed our cash flow generation estimates for the quarter, driven by solid cash collections. Let's get to the specifics. Overall, we generated $2.1 billion of operating cash flow. All segments contributed to the better-than-expected results with particularly strong cash generation in Combat Systems and technologies. Including capital expenditures, our free cash flow was $1.9 billion for the quarter or 179% of net income.

Coming off strong cash collections in the third quarter, we now expect about half as much free cash flow as we generated in the third quarter in the fourth quarter. Our estimate includes an increase in capital expenditures as we continue to invest in our businesses, especially in electric boat and somewhat larger tax payments in the final quarter of the year. As a result, we anticipate a free cash flow conversion percentage in the low 90s for the year. This guidance includes some goodness from the reversal of the R&D capitalization, but the rest of that benefit will be lived over the next few years. Having said that, the uncertain duration and future potential impacts of the government shutdown creates a lack of clear visibility into our cash forecast for the remainder of the year. We are taking prudent actions to conserve cash and liquidity. If a resolution can be reached in the near term, we would expect to be able to achieve the forecast that I just discussed. However, in the event of a protracted shutdown, it is unclear how and when our cash flow will be impacted despite our careful efforts to diligently manage cash.

Looking at capital deployment. Capital expenditures were $212 million in the quarter or 1.6% of sales and $552 million year-to-date. We are targeting over 2% of sales for the full year CapEx and given the expected investments in the fourth quarter that I mentioned a moment ago. We paid $403 million in dividends and repaid $696 million of commercial paper during the quarter. Year-to-date, we have returned $1.8 billion to shareholders in dividends and share repurchases. We ended the quarter with a cash balance of $2.5 billion. That brings us to a net debt position of $5.5 billion down $1.7 billion from last quarter. After quarter end, we did reenter the commercial paper market to support our liquidity during the government shutdown in the event of slow or nonpayment issues. Interest expense in the quarter was $74 million compared with $82 million last year.

That brings interest expense for the first 9 months of the year to $251 million, up slightly from $248 million last year. Finally, the tax rate in the quarter was 16.7%, bringing the rate for the first 9 months to 17.2%. This rate is approaching our outlook for the full year, which remains around 17.5%.

Now let me turn it back over to Phebe.

Thanks, Kim. So in light of the things we've just discussed, let me give you some thoughts for the remainder of the year. On a company-wide basis, we see annual revenue of around $52 billion and margins of around 10.3%. The puts and takes around the businesses are sufficiently modest, but I will not get into them here. Overall, we are increasing our EPS forecast between $15.30 to $15.35. Some of you may regard this as a cautious forecast given the performance year-to-date. Let me remind you that we're in the midst of a government shutdown with no end in sight. The longer it lasts, the more it will impact us, particularly the shorter-cycle businesses. So forecast in this environment are difficult at best and less reliable than 1 would hope. .

This concludes our remarks, and we'll be happy to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Myles Walton with Wolfe Research.

Phebe, on the orders front within Aerospace, second quarter that they've been quite strong. And I'm curious how much of this do you think is customers seeing that delivery pace is sort of coming together, realizing that they better get in line lead times where they are? And maybe how much of it is maybe just more because the certification happens, the orders come in.

I'd say there were a whole host of factors that drove the orders. I think primarily, it's the strength of the economy. It's been -- our order book has been pretty resilient. And in fact, the pipeline remains resilient and pretty robust. So I'd say it's it's that. It's a combination of that plus the fact that we've got a number of new models, delivery cadence is improving. So I think it's all the factors that you mentioned. And I will note that it is across the portfolio, led primarily by the 800. .

Geographically, is there an area of particular strength?

North America. .

Your next question comes from the line of Robert Stallard with Vertical Research.

there's been some reports that the customer -- the U.S. customer is talking to defense companies about potentially investing more of their own money, the CapEx and R&D in exchange for the work they do. and also potentially putting restrictions on their ability to return cash to shareholders. And I wonder if you had any views or experience of this so far?

I think we've all read the same reports. I would note that we have invested heavily over the last 7 years in our business because we anticipated the growth in all of our shipyards in our Combat Systems business and in technology. So we have a very, very clear record of heavy investing in our portfolio because we did see this growth coming. And some of it was predictable and some of it, I think, is just the natural cycle of defense spending driven by the threat, which is increasingly obvious. I think we all read the same reports.

We haven't seen anything like that yet, but we're pretty comfortable that we have invested, and we will continue to invest where we see it prudent to support the growth.

Okay. And then just a quick follow-up for Kim on the very strong free cash flow in the quarter. Were there any unusual defense advances in there, particularly from Europe, which helped the number? .

No, there were not. Not in this quarter.

Your next question comes from the line of Ken Herbert with RBC.

Phebe, I wanted to follow up on your comments and Kim's comments. On the shutdown, you said protracted, how should we think about timing from what would be a protracted shutdown from your view? And are you seeing anything yet specifically you can point to that's either impacting cash collection or contract timing or anything else as a result of the shutdown.

On cash collection, not yet on contracts, in some instances, the contracting people have been sent home. So that will push contracting into whatever weak quarter months that the government resumes. I think from our point of view, we've looked at this as a rolling basis since it is unknowable. When the shutdown ends, then we are looking on a weekly basis and rolling forward to anticipate what each 1 of our contracts look like to the extent that we can. So we're -- it does introduce uncertainty in the quarter. And if it goes into next year, that increases the likelihood that it will have additional impact on particular lines of business that begin to run out of funding. So there's an awful lot of, I think, uncertainty in that uncertain environment, I think we're taking a prudent approach.

Okay. And when you talk about protracted, I'm guessing, based on your comments, we should think about something resolved this quarter, probably not a material impact, but if it fills into '26, that would be obviously a different story.

I think we'd have to assess where we are contract by contract. But clearly, the longer this goes on, the greater the risk and particularly in the supply chain. .

Your next question comes from the line of Ron Epstein with Bank of America.

Maybe the first one for you on Gulfstream. So unlike a lot of other companies in the market, you guys have a suite of new products out there and really gaining the benefit from that. How are you thinking about product development now? Because my understanding is Gulfstream has always had sort of a steady investment in product development going to be year-over-year and just doesn't ramp up, ramp time is very steady. Is that still the case? And how are you thinking about it going forward? I know we got all this behind us and sort of like the last question you probably want. But how are you thinking about it?

Well, look, as you well know, we have -- this has been a long-term strategy of ours to replace the entirety of our fleet with own new product designed to meet every 1 of our customers' missions, and we've done that. I think the most recent announcement of the 300 shows that. As we go forward, we will be upgrading our products in due course, and that's probably all that we're going to say at this point. These are all brand-new airplanes, and they've got a lot of running room, and they've met with very, very strong positive customer reaction.

Got it. Got it. And then one for Danny, if you will, on shipbuilding -- shipbuilding has been sort of a bugaboo for the industry. When you think about making the shipbuilding business more efficient, how are you thinking about it? I mean labor, I think it's been 1 of the big problems for the entire industry. But I mean, from your point of view, I mean what are the levers you're pulling today to try to really get the efficiency out of the shipyards up?

Yes. So let me start with the supply chain. I think in my comments, I mentioned that we've seen some improvement in the supply chain, and there's other areas where it's still lagging. But those improvements are significant, just to give you a sense, and that will have the biggest impact on our ability to drive productivity and schedule and start to grow margins. But to give you a sense of how the supply chain has evolved and a lot of it from the investments the government has made in the supply chain in terms of productivity, employee retention and just increasing capacity. But we've seen a 40% increase in the last 2 years in the sequence critical material. That's really -- that helps with productivity.

And if you look at it across all of the supply we get, it's been a 75% increase. We'll receive almost 5 million parts. So I'd say the #1 thing that will impact our efficiency in our shipyards is the supply chain stabilizing. And as our shipbuilders come down the learning curve from an efficiency standpoint, and we're starting to see that. We're starting to see good ship-over-ship learning. And we make investments in all the same things that is happening in the supply base with respect to robotics and automation and employee development and training. That's where we really see the biggest bang for our buck.

Your next question comes from the line of Kristine Liwag with Morgan Stanley.

And congratulations on the record backlog in defense and growth in aerospace. I guess focusing on technologies, Look, we've seen continued strength in the backlog, but we're also seeing a notable step-up in the unfunded backlog I was wondering if you could provide more color on what's driving this? Is this related to those or the government shutdown? And when would we expect this to either convert to funded or eventually convert to the higher revenue for the segment?

I don't think that there's any root cause other than just timing that drives drives that increase. I'm not aware of anything in particular. We are continuing to work with our customers. We always work with them in the normal course, and that's continuing now on ways in which that we can all improve our efficiency. But I wouldn't point to any particular element in that. And recall, we book and Nicole can walk you through this offline, but we backlog a little differently than a lot of them, and we're pretty conservative about it. But I would say that driving that backlog is the demand that we're seeing pretty much across the portfolio. GDIT, in particular, had a very, very strong book-to-bill will like in excess of 2:1 in the quarter, and they've continued to have very strong bookings as a lot of their investments have begun to pay off in cyber, 0 trust environment. AI. So we're in pretty good stead in that market. .

And if I could follow on Ron's question about product development in aerospace. We've seen in the past few years kind of some interest in supersonic. I was wondering, would that be on the table for a next program for Gulfstream?

Well, first of all, there is 0 way I'm going to venture into what we're going to do next. But I will say something about supersonically. If you have to see a business case that even remotely works. So -- Yes. .

Your next question comes from the line of Peter Arment with Baird.

Phebe, maybe just to stay on Gulfstream. Just given the resilience of this -- the bookings environment and the backlog and how well you guys are doing, does that provide pressure on kind of where production is? Or do you need to take rates up? Or do you feel like you've got a the right cadence with the current rates today?

Well, our rates are driven by the backlog and demand. So far, we're comfortable in our rates will increase in a regular order. But if you -- if we continue to see increasing demand and increasing backlog, we'll have to increase our rates, that's pretty much, I think, our standard operating cadence, nothing's changed in that regard and how we -- with respect to how we react to increases in demand. .

So we'll continue to increase, I think, year-over-year for the next couple of years. That's sort of our plan.

Got it. That's helpful. And just as a follow-up, could you give us the latest on where things stand on construction for the first Columbia class just given all the reports out there and maybe how things are either showing some improvement in getting ready for additional volumes that are coming.

So we have the jig fixture facilities to continue to produce. We'll continue to invest and particularly in productivity improvements. and additional footprint as needed. The first Columbia is about 50% complete by the end of this year. We'll have all the major modules at Graton ready for assembly and test, and then systematically work through each 1 of those testing items. It's pretty rigorous as you could imagine, first-of-class testing program, we'll work in coordination hand in glove at the Navy, but we're moving -- we're working very hard to move that ship to the last along with our customer and along with the supply chain. So we've -- and we've seen some improvements again from the supply chain, as Danny I think, clearly articulated. So this next year will be pivotal. .

Your next question comes from the line of Seth Seifman with JPMorgan.

I wanted to ask one about Combat. And so I was kind of thinking about the future there and the fact that there are some headwinds in vehicles, including Stryker and some tailwinds, maybe from munitions and in Europe. And kind of wondering if that business was going to grow. But based on the comments you made earlier and kind of the backlog growth we saw in the quarter, it sounds like there's potential for combat growth to accelerate out of this year. Is that a fair way to think about it?

That's how we're looking at it. I think you quite accurately pointed to the headwinds and the tailwinds. International vehicle demand is increasing and at a higher rate and munitions demand, both internationally and domestically is increasing as our we are a supplier to the primes on missile parts, and that also is increasing. But there is some headwind with respect to U.S. combat vehicles, that is until we accelerate the delivery of the new tank. So it's a mix, but we see some nice growth driven by our international business.

And let me tell you, I want to give you a little bit of perspective on that international business. So we have indigenous businesses that have been the backbone of their country's supply chain for the last industrial base for the last 25 years. And in these businesses, they are have indigenous engineering design and manufacturing, and they are run by host country national. So these are -- when we produce vehicles coming out of Europe to Europe, they are European engineered European design and European manufactured. And we think that's a very, very good and it's been a successful business model for us. as demonstrated by we've got the largest installed fleet in Europe. So we're pretty comfortable with the competitive positioning of that business.

Great. Great. And maybe as a follow-up, you talk a little bit about where we stand in the replacement cycle for G650. To what degree has that been driving recent orders for 800, and I assume it's more 800 than $700 million. And to what kind of pipeline is there for that as we kind of look ahead?

So as you know, we phased out the 650, and you're quite right, we're placed by the 800. The 800 has had an awful lot of customer interest. It led the orders demand in the quarter. And we have a pretty robust pipeline. So we -- that transition from the 650 to the 800 let very, very smoothly. The introduction of the 800 and has gone well and deliveries are increasing. I mean this week, we just delivered our sixth -- by the way, we also -- this week delivered our 72nd G700. So I think that's an indication of more regular cadence in the delivery profile as the supply chain has stabilized. .

Your next question comes from the line of Sheila Kahyaoglu with Nepris.

Maybe if I could ask a follow-up on that topic, maybe just how do we think about -- you have so many development programs, and you've done a great job with the shift from the 650 to 800. And yet, the margins are going to be stable even with the 650 going away. So how are you thinking about the G 800 learning curve, the 700 as well? If you could provide us an update on those blocks and how we should be thinking about that?

Well, we're coming down the learning curve on those on both of those airplanes, 650 was a mature high-margin airplane. So it will take a while for the 800 to reach those similar gross margins. But we like the prospects on both of the -- and all of our airplanes, frankly. And the keys are getting the increasing stabilization of the supply chain, and they've gotten much, much better. say the introduction of the 800 demonstrated the strength of the supply chain as they become more reliable and are better able to keep up with demand as compared to the 700. That supply chain too has stabilized. So we'll continue to see gross margin improvement as we come down our learning curves.

Can I ask a follow-up again on air source if it's okay. on deliveries and just R&D on the delivery profile for the 700, 800, do we think about that cumulative being the 650? Or is it plus that? And then R&D how much of a tailwind do we see from R&D as you certified some of the major programs?

Our R&D will be about the same for a while. We've got developmental programs, and we still have airplanes to get through certification. The 800 is really the replacement for the 650. And that is what we are seeing as the 650 customers are buying the 800 as a replacement to 700, I think, is a market expander. It is a new offering and an element of the market that we didn't have before. So I think net debt, that's a positive growth profile going forward. .

Next question comes from the line of Doug Harned with Bernstein.

Going back to combat, you talked about the value of having the indigenous operations in country in Europe. When you look forward, given the growth potential in Europe, do you expect to be doing more investment there? And could this be beyond just ground vehicles into other areas?

We have the facilities and the infrastructure to produce at the moment. I don't see getting out of our core. I don't see moving past tactical bridges or high-end combat vehicles. I think one of the things we have differentiated ourselves as having the discipline to stick with what we know, do what to know well and get better and better and better at it you serve your customers, your people, your shareholders best by doing that. So we'll stick to our noting.

And then going back to Columbia class, I mean the delays. There's been a lot of discussion about delays. Can you talk a little bit about what has driven those? Have those been related to design changes, supply chain, labor. And you mentioned a little bit about addressing these issues, but can you talk a little bit more about mitigation and where we might end up if things get better there?

So I'd say the single largest impact on the cadence of manufacturing and delivering ultimate delivery of the first Columbia has been the supply chain, the fragility of the supply chain as it's tried to ramp up from very low rate production, which has been in for the last 25, 30 years and quintupling that production. That has been the single largest challenge. And the government has recognized that and for the last several years has provided nice robust funding to mature that supply chain and to expand it, and we're beginning to see some of the fruits of that effort pay off. We also, as you know, and this happened through most of U.S. industrials had a had a significant demographic shift as experienced bookers retired, and we had a generational change with younger workers coming on board. I would say that we've had -- we had invested in our training programs and with the government help are continuing to invest in our training programs so that we -- when the new shipbuilders come out of the training program, there are a higher level of efficiency than they had been in the past. That's all good. with the government's working with the government, we've also been able to increase wages in a wage competitive environment.

So -- and we're very comfortable that we've got the manpower and the facilities. We've continued to invest in facilities. And as Danny was alluding to, particularly on the productivity side. So I think there is a lot that's beginning to coalesce and come together to reduce risk in this program and bring it to the left. And that is our objective, working very closely with our customer.

Your next question comes from the line of Richard Safran with Seaport Research Partners.

If it's okay, I just have a -- I'm going to ask 1 2-part question on contracting. And right off the bat, I'm not asking for anything on specific contracts. Generally speaking, could you comment on changes to the contracting environment you're seeing with the new administration. There was some chatter about award fees and incentive fees. And I'm just wondering what you're seeing in new contracts? And then second, just with respect to international, are you seeing more of an influx of direct commercial awards versus FMS? I was just kind of curious as what the mix is, given all the new awards you've been getting.

So I don't know that I've seen wholesale change in contracting other than there's been an emphasis on speed. And in so with some customers, we've seen faster contracting and in others, a little bit more prolonged. So I can't say that across the entire portfolio that we've seen any wholesale changes. I think that we've got a sophisticated buyer and we are working with them right now on several large contracts.

So I don't know that I can offer any holistic or observations on that front. We have seen, again, if you step back and look at the entirety of the Federal workplace, we've seen the retirement of at least in the markets that we plan, retirement of experience contracting personnel with an increase in newer contracting folks will have to come down their learning curves, but I suspect that it will do so in time. With respect to international orders, there is a quite a robust pipeline for FMS, but it is slow to materialize. We know the demand is out there. When it comes through the FMS process is always a question. In Europe, we have direct commercial sales and sometimes the ex U.S. and other places in the East. And we'll see as the munitions demand ramps up, that could be a combination of both direct commercial sales and foreign military sales.

Your next question comes from the line of Gautam Khanna with TD Cowen.

Wanted to follow up on Rich's question actually with respect to Marine, and I know you guys are in talks for 5 Columbia class and the next Virginia Class Block wanted to get your expectations around timing in the form of that contract. Do you think you'll get all of them ordered at once? Or is it going to be incremental, maybe when? And if the contract terms might actually be a little more favorable with the government taking on a little more risk than they were willing to in the prior administration.

Well, the operating assumption is that those contracts are executed this year. We're certainly not going to get into any particulars of those contracts. They'll be very large, highly complex contracts. And once we sign them, we can -- and we'll be a little bit as we have been in the past, transparent about what the incentives and obligations are in those contracts. But we've had and we'll continue to have and see even more working close working relationship between the government and us as we try to solve mutual problem.

How do we get shipbuilding throughput increased and while maintaining the quality. So we remain optimistic that together as partners will drive a lot of that change and move these move these deliveries to the left.

And Eric, I think we have time for just 1 more question. .

Your final question comes from the line of Scott Mikus with Melius Research.

Historically, you've talked about Colombia driving $400 million to $500 million of annual sales growth at Marine. It's been significantly higher than that in the past couple of years. Obviously, very strong growth on tough comps again this year. So if we're going to progress to 2 plus 1 on Virginia and Colombia, should Marine sustainably be growing sales at least $1 billion per annum until we hit that cadence? And then once we do hit that cadence, is that when marine margins get back to the 8% to 9% range?

So I think it's a way to think about this is that we anticipate similar growth that we've seen over the last few years. And when you think about -- so I don't see that, at least in the near term changing, but it's been very robust growth. But when you think about margins, I think Danny walked you through kind of what are the main drivers. And it's primarily stabilizing that supply chain and increasing our throughput so that we can both offset any supply chain perturbations.

And I think that's the best way to margin improvement, and it is very importantly, the best way to accelerate the throughput. I don't know if you want to add anything on that, Danny. SP1 Yes. No, I think you've captured it to the extent that the supply chain stabilizes. I think that's where we will see meaningful margin expansion.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining our call today.

Please refer to the General Dynamics website for the third quarter earnings release and highlights presentation. As a reminder, we will resume our normal reporting schedule of Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. for our fourth quarter call. If you have additional questions, I can be reached at (703) 876-3152. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.