Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

FORM 10-K

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

UNITED DEFENSE INDUSTRIES, INC.

1525 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700,

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

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

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months, and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

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

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).     Yes þ          No o

      The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $1,043,480,494 based on the closing price of $25.94 per share on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2003.

      Common Stock, $.01 par value, 52,341,136 shares outstanding as of January 30, 2004.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

      Certain information in the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for its 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A no later than April 30, 2004 is incorporated by reference in Part III of this Report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

      Our Form 10-K disclosure and analysis concerning our operations, cash flows and financial position, including, in particular, the likelihood of our success in developing and expanding our business and the realization of sales from our backlog, include forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Statements that are predictive in nature, that depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or that include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. Although these statements are based upon assumptions we consider reasonable, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that are described more fully below under the caption “Risk Factors”. Accordingly, we can give no assurance that we will achieve the results anticipated or implied by our forward-looking statements.

1

Table of Contents

PART I

Overview

      United Defense Industries, Inc. was incorporated in 1997 to acquire United Defense, L.P. (“UDLP”), a global leader in the design, development, and production of combat vehicles, artillery systems, naval guns, and missile launchers used by the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries throughout the world. In 2000, we acquired Bofors Defence (“Bofors”), based in Sweden, a leading producer of artillery systems, air defense and naval guns, and precision munitions. In 2002, we acquired United States Marine Repair, Inc. (“USMR”), the leading provider of ship repair, maintenance and modernization services to the U.S. Navy, other U.S. defense related agencies, and commercial customers. With the acquisition of USMR, we are now organized into two separate product and service lines which are each considered separate reportable segments: Defense Systems and Ship Repair and Maintenance. Our Defense Systems program portfolio consists of a mix of weapons system development, production, upgrade, and life cycle support programs. Our Ship Repair and Maintenance business segment consists of ship repair, maintenance, and modernization service programs.

      Our Defense Systems segment’s primary military programs include upgrades of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (“BFV”) and its derivatives, Naval Ordnance production and development programs, and development of several manned ground vehicle types within the Army’s Future Combat Systems (“FCS”) program, including the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (“NLOS-C”). Since 1981, the BFV has served as the leading domestically produced vehicle able to fulfill the dual role of troop transport and armored fighting vehicle. We have maintained our prime contractor position on the BFV program since production began, and have added a number of technology-based upgrades and derivative vehicles that continue to extend the program’s life cycle. In addition to managing the BFV vehicle programs, we serve as the prime contractor for a number of military programs, several of which have spanned decades, including the M88 tank recovery vehicle since 1960, the M113 armored personnel carrier since 1960, and the U.S. Navy’s Mk45 naval gun system since 1968. However, many of our traditional U.S. Army (the “Army”) programs are expected to be supplanted by the Army’s Stryker and/or FCS programs (discussed below).

      The Ship Repair and Maintenance segment’s primary military contracts relate to long-term maintenance programs on U.S. surface ships including, guided missile destroyers, cruisers, mine countermeasures ships, cargo, and amphibious ships.

Business Segments, Products and Programs

      Revenue generated from each of our segments and major programs is summarized below.

2

Table of Contents

      The Bradley Fighting Vehicle. We have been the sole-source, prime contractor of the BFV to the Army since its initial production in 1981. The BFV is a tracked armored vehicle with a 25mm cannon, TOW missiles and a stabilized turret, and is the leading domestically produced vehicle able to fulfill the dual role of troop transport and armored fighting vehicle. The BFV is outfitted with armor and day/night sights, and can transport up to nine soldiers across rough terrain. The vehicle’s combination of lethality, survivability, and mobility has established it as a critical component of the U.S. Government’s full-spectrum warfare strategy. A total of 7,178 BFVs and derivatives have been built, of which 400 were for the Saudi Arabian Army.

      Although new BFVs are no longer being built, we derive significant revenue from upgrading the Army’s existing fleet of BFVs. We initiated delivery of the latest upgrade, the BFV A3 version, in October of 1998 as part of a low rate initial production contract awarded in July of 1997. The BFV A3, which currently includes the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and Fire Support Vehicle variants, is the most modern version of the vehicle and provides enhanced situation awareness capability and improved lethality, survivability and sustainability. The BFVA3 has a fully integrated digital architecture and is adaptable to the Army’s emerging network architecture as it transforms its current force into the future force. The U.S. Army is in the process of upgrading 595 older version BFVs to the A3 configuration, with annual funding allocations over the seven-year period between FY1997-2003. We had been awarded four single year contracts for A3 upgrades (FY1997-2000) for a total of 206 vehicles, and in May 2001, we received a multi-year contract (FY2001-2003) for an additional 389 vehicles. Of these 595 vehicles, 91 were delivered in 2003 and 228 in prior years. Production under the BFV A3 multi-year contract is expected to be completed by June 2005.

      In September of 2003, Congress added $221 million to the FY2004 budget to provide for the procurement of an additional 144 Bradleys. These vehicles will be an improved version of the BFV A2 (known as the A2 OIF) that will incorporate many of the lessons learned during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Production of these vehicles is expected to start in the second quarter of 2005 and end in the third quarter of 2006.

      The Administration’s FY05 budget does not propose further funding for the BFV and other current force systems. Unless a different approach results from the legislative process, such as the addition of funds for BFV work, we believe that our BFV production work would be reduced significantly following the completion of the 144 vehicles added to the FY2004 budget.

      BFV Derivatives and Support. The BFV has served as a platform for a number of derivative vehicles we have developed. One such derivative, the Multiple Launch Rocket System (“MLRS”) carrier, was developed to provide a carrier for a long-range rocket artillery system and is outfitted with rockets, a launcher and fire control system developed and produced by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. We were awarded a contract to initiate an MLRS remanufacture program, with the first delivery completed in August 1997. Another derivative, the Fire Support Vehicle, supports armor and mechanized forces by pinpointing enemy targets using laser technology, which allows more accurate and timely calls for fire to the artillery batteries. We provided 22 kits to convert BFVs under a workshare arrangement with Red River Army Depot to produce Fire Support Vehicles. Another such vehicle is the Command and Control Vehicle (“C2V”). The C2V is a self-contained vehicle used for communications and operational control of forces that keeps pace with armored maneuver forces while providing the crew with a protected environment. We were awarded a three-year production contract for C2V variants in December 1998 which were completed in May 2001. Although the Army removed additional production funding for the C2V in FY01 and cancelled the FY00 award, we retained and maintained all of the C2Vs produced under the original contract. At the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom we fielded 15 vehicles to the Army under an urgent need statement. In addition to the C2V, we developed and fielded the Bradley Command Vehicle (“BCV”) to fulfill an urgent requirement prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The BCV is a derivative vehicle of the turreted Bradley.

      In addition to the development and manufacture of BFV derivatives, we provide BFV upgrade kits and field services. Kits allow for the upgrade of BFVs to incorporate advances in technology. We also deploy experts to provide on-site training and advice to customers, complete maintenance and repairs, and assess the necessity of replacement parts. We are under contract with the U.S. Army’s Simulation, Training and

3

Table of Contents

      Mk45 Naval Gun System (“Mk45”). United Defense is the original equipment manufacturer and sole source producer for the Navy’s 5-inch Mk45 gun system for the Navy’s current class of destroyers, the Arleigh Burke DDG 51 class (“DDG51”). We are under contract through FY03 requirements. The U.S. Navy currently plans to continue building DDG51 class ships through at least FY05. We are also the prime contractor for the Naval Surface Fire Support (“NSFS”) program. This NSFS program includes upgrading the Mk45 gun system with the capability to fire precision munitions. Due to the NSFS program, we have received contracts to upgrade eight Mk45 guns for the Navy’s Ticonderoga class ships from Mod0/1 to Mod4 configuration, which extends the Mk45’s range and improves surface fire capability. Furthermore, the U.S. Government supports allied navies having compatible armaments, and provides us assistance in efforts to place Mk45s on foreign ships. We believe the improvements included in the Mod4 configuration, which provide significantly greater range, will make the Mk45 more competitive internationally. We are presently executing Mk45 contracts for Australia, Denmark, and Korea.

      Advanced Gun System (“AGS”). The U.S. Navy is currently developing its next-generation destroyer, the DD(X), with land attack as its primary mission. We are the sole-source developer of the 155 mm AGS, the primary gun weapon system on DD(X), acting as a subcontractor to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, as well as the source selection authority for development of the Long Range Land Attack Projectile (“LRLAP”).

      The 155-mm AGS with LRLAP will support the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps expeditionary and Joint Operations warfighters in the littorals and deep inland, capable of a maximum sustained firing rate of 10 rounds per minute to deliver high-volume 155-mm LRLAP fires at ranges of up to 100 nautical miles. The high-capacity, fully automated 155-mm AGS and below deck ammunition handling and storage system allows for an uninterrupted and sustained high-volume of fire. Each of the DD(X) destroyers will have two of the AGS gun systems on board, providing the equivalent firepower of two battalions of U.S. Marine Corps M198 howitzers. Compared to the current Arleigh Burke Class DDG-51 ships, the gun system sales per ship will increase by 4 times for the DD(X).

      Funded gun development was initiated in 1999, with completion of development scheduled for 2006. We are currently in System Development and Demonstration for the AGS. Under this phase, we are developing Engineering Development Models to demonstrate the feasibility of the technology and reduce risks. We successfully completed Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review for the Engineering Development Models in 2003. Land based testing will begin in 2005. The prototype ship is scheduled to begin construction in FY05.

      The 155-mm LRLAP is a Global Positioning System/ Inertial Measurement Unit-guided and rocket assisted munition capable of delivering a unitary high-explosive warhead at extreme range. In 2003, we selected Lockheed Martin to develop the Engineering Development Model for the LRLAP. This projectile effort is currently funded through FY05.

      Deepwater. The United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) is a key element in supporting the United States national security strategy by maintaining the nation’s economic, social, environmental, and military security in the maritime environment. High and medium endurance cutters are expected to operate in 14 legislatively mandated USCG missions. For these increasing mission requirements and to account for materiel obsolescence, the USCG established the Deepwater Capability Replacement Project to extend the lifecycle of existing systems and to establish future USCG cutters. The Deepwater National Security Cutter (“NSC”) will be designed to perform the several major integrated Deepwater System missions and to serve as a host for others.

4

Table of Contents

      Deepwater System missions are the key application for a new Gun Weapon System (“GWS”) and the need for a modern medium-caliber gun system with a fire control system has been identified. The Bofors 57mm Mk 3 gun, with its 3P ammunition, forms an all-purpose naval gun system combining extremely high anti-aircraft and anti-missile kill probability with high effectiveness against surface and shore targets. This compact, lightweight gun is unmanned and fully automatic with computerized, hydraulically operated, automatic reloading from two ship-mounted hoists. These features, combined with the 3P ammunition, greatly enhance firepower and endurance against aerial, surface, and shore targets with a maximum range of 17,000 meters. The gun is operated remotely from the fire control system and incorporates computer-assisted aiming and firing limitation systems.

      The Deepwater program is currently in the design phase with the contract for the first National Security Cutter (“NSC-1”) awarded in September, 2003. United Defense is teamed with Northrop Grumman Ship Systems and has been awarded an order for the first Bofors 57mm gun. The Bofors 57mm Mk 3 is undergoing gun and ammunition qualification in Louisville, KY and Dahlgren, VA for installation on NSC-1 in December, 2006.

      Littoral Combat Ship. We have provided competitive proposals for the Bofors 57mm Gun System to the three competing teams for the Littoral Combat Ship program. The Littoral Combat Ship program plan is to procure one or two ships from one or two teams in Flight 0, test the ships, then procure Flight 1 ships starting in 2008. We anticipate that there will be one 57mm gun per ship. There are 57 ships planned for the LCS program, with procurement rates reaching as high as six per year. The Bofors 57mm Gun System is an excellent fit for the Littoral Combat Ship, given its size, weight, performance and commonality with the US Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater System National Security Cutter selection of the Bofors 57mm Gun System.

      Minor Caliber Gun System. The US Navy is currently establishing requirements to develop and field stabilized Minor Caliber Guns (“MCG”) to provide protection against small boat surface threats. United Defense is actively involved in two MCG programs that have significant domestic and international market potential. The first program is to develop, test, and field a .50 caliber stabilized MCG system for short range defense called the EX-45. United Defense is working on this program cooperatively with the U.S. Navy, Louisville, Kentucky In-Service-Engineering-Agency (“ISEA”). Three EX-45 units are under contract from the Louisville ISEA for development testing in 2004.

      The second MCG program is to develop, test, and field a 25mm stabilized gun system with on-mount sensors. This system will be remotely operated and replace existing Mk 38 guns on-board U.S. Navy DDG class destroyers. A solicitation has been released by the U.S. Navy to procure 25mm MCGs in 2004. United Defense has teamed with two companies to compete for this program. The two companies will be submitting proposals with United Defense as the prime contractor using existing MCG solutions modified to meet specific U.S. Navy requirements. These two MCG systems are considered the major competitors to win the competition. The winning MCG system will be adopted by the U.S. Navy as the baseline 25mm MCG system for the fleet with significant potential business in other domestic and international markets.

      Submarine Propulsor. We are the sole-source prime contractor of U.S. submarine propulsors, which enables a submarine to meet stealth mission requirements. We are currently under contract to produce six propulsors for Virginia Class submarines for delivery through 2004. The first four systems have been delivered ahead of schedule. In addition, we have been selected to be the sole source prime contractor for the follow-on multi-year propulsor contract.

      Launching Systems. The MK 41 Vertical Launching System (“MK 41 VLS”) is the U.S. and nine allied navies’ primary multi-mission, multi-missile launcher on surface combatant warships such as destroyers and cruisers. The MK 41 VLS launches the anti-air threat Standard Missile, strike mission-related Tomahawk cruise missile, vertical launch anti-submarine rocket, and ship self-defense Sea Sparrow missile. We manufacture all the major structural assemblies and electrical cables for the MK 41 VLS launcher under subcontracts to Lockheed Martin Corporation, the prime contractor of the MK 41 VLS launcher. We have an MK 41 VLS teaming agreement with Lockheed Martin, which covers both U.S. and foreign sales through December 31, 2011. The U.S. Navy installs the VLS, like the Mk45, on all DDG51s, each of which contains

5

Table of Contents

      As indicated above, the U.S. Navy awarded the initial design contract for the next-generation destroyer, the DD(X) to Northrop Grumman. We are a teammate and subcontractor to Raytheon Corporation for the systems engineering of the next generation Mk57 VLS for the DD(X), and will design and fabricate the mechanical portions of the Mk57 VLS engineering development model. The contract is scheduled to be completed in 2005, with the follow-on production start slated to begin in 2005 after the DD(X) Critical Design Review.

      M88 Armored Recovery Vehicle (“M88”). We have been the sole-source, prime contractor of the M88 to the U.S. Army since 1960. The M88 currently has an installed base of more than 3,325 vehicles in 19 countries throughout the world. The M88 performs towing, lifting and winching tasks in the recovery of impaired tanks or in basic tracked vehicle maintenance. In preparation for the deployment of heavier M1 tanks by the U.S. Army, in 1986 we began the development effort for the M88A2 (“HERCULES”) upgrade, in order to handle 70-ton vehicles. The enhanced capabilities of HERCULES enable a single system with three crewmembers to lift a tank turret or upright and tow an M1A1/ A2 tank, tasks which would otherwise require eight soldiers and two recovery vehicles. The U.S. Army has been awarding annual contracts for M88 upgrades since 1994. Additionally, in 2000 we began to supply M88 upgrades to the U.S. Marine Corps (“USMC”). We are currently under contract to deliver 32 vehicles to the U.S. Army and USMC through October 2004. We are working with the USMC to define the requirements for a FY04 contract, which may be additional vehicles, spares and support. Under the Administration’s proposed FY04 budget, further procurement for HERCULES production would cease after these contracts are completed. We also have an ongoing co-production contract with Egypt for 66 M88A2 kits through March 2004. In addition, we have just received a long lead funding award for 21 additional vehicles to be co-produced with Egypt through 2006. This vehicle has also been fielded in both Thailand and Kuwait.

      M109 Self-Propelled Howitzer (“M109”). The M109 has been the most widely used field artillery howitzer for the U.S. military and certain foreign governments since we first produced it in 1974. The M109 is recognized for its ability to deliver rapid and high volume artillery support and to maximize survivability through mobility. The latest generation is the M109A6 Paladin. We completed deliveries of 7 Paladins in 2001 and received a follow-on order for 18 additional units in January 2002. We have various non-production activities on Paladin, specifically engineering and training contracts. We also design and produce unique configurations of the M109 and offer M109 upgrade kits, servicing and training to various foreign governments. In July 2003 we received a Foreign Military Sales (“FMS”) contract for $46M from the US Army to refurbish 201 M109 series self-propelled howitzers for the Government of Egypt. Production is expected to run through November of 2005.

      Objective Force Indirect Fire, Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (“NLOS-C”). The NLOS-C program has been incorporated into the FCS Development and Demonstration program described below.

      Assault Amphibious Vehicle (“AAV”). The AAV has been the U.S. Marine Corps’ assault amphibious vehicle for over two decades with more than 1,500 vehicles delivered. In July 1998, we were awarded a

6

Table of Contents

      M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (“M113”). The M113 has been the main troop transport vehicle used by the U.S. military and allied governments throughout the world, with more than 80,000 units delivered since initial production in 1960. We have produced several M113 models in cooperation with U.S. allies, including various configurations of the Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle, previously produced in Europe and currently produced by our Turkish affiliate, FNSS. The U.S. Army, which received our last delivery of new M113s in 1992, continues to upgrade its M113s to the latest A3 configuration. This upgrade work currently occurs in our Anniston, Alabama facility. The upgrade work is performed in a partnering arrangement with the Anniston Army Depot. We are currently under contract for 77 vehicles to be delivered in 2004, with a potential for an additional 80 in 2004 and 2005. Other contracts include vehicles for Egypt and Israel.

      In 2002, we were awarded a contract to produce Opposing Forces Main Battle Tank vehicles (“OPFOR-MBT”), an M113A2 converted to the A3 configuration with visual modifications, bringing the total to date to 62 such vehicles. If the two remaining options are awarded, 113 OPFOR-MBT vehicles will have been produced over the life of the contract.

      In addition, we are supplying kits for the Canadian Army to upgrade their M113A2 vehicles to the latest M113A3 configuration and to produce the new improved Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (“MTVL”). The MTVL variant, which is a patented UDLP M113 derivative, has significantly more cross-country mobility, payload capacity and under armor volume than the standard M113A3.

      Future Combat Systems. The Future Combat Systems, or FCS program, is the Army’s planned means by which its future combat force is to be developed and produced. FCS is intended to provide an electronically linked network of surveillance, command and control, and combat capabilities, including manned and unmanned vehicles, by which the Army would prosecute future combat missions. As such, it is expected to embrace the missions historically performed by Army combat systems such as our Bradley, artillery (M109/ FAASV and Crusader), and battlefield transport (M113) systems. In March 2002 the Army selected a contractor team led by The Boeing Company to act as the so-called Lead Systems Integrator in managing the initial phase of the FCS program. Ground combat vehicles, planned as a mixture of manned and unmanned types, are to comprise a major element of FCS.

      (a) FCS Manned Ground Vehicles. In January 2003 the Army announced that the development and integration of the manned ground combat vehicles (“MGVs”) for FCS would be performed by a team composed of ourselves and General Dynamics. Since the Army anticipates spending approximately $15 billion on the FCS program over the next six years, the critical role envisioned for us on the program’s MGV component is of long-term significance to our revenues and potential profits.

      In December 2003, United Defense was awarded two subcontracts by Boeing totaling $2.2 billion for the System Development and Demonstration (“SDD”) phase of MGV. MGV is a family of eight mission variants with a common-design platform that operate within the FCS family of systems via networked battle command. Our role on the integrated design team for MGV is overall responsibility for five variants (the non-line of sight cannon or NLOS-C, the non-line of sight mortar or NLOS-M, the infantry carrier vehicle or ICV, the medical vehicle or MV, and the maintenance/recovery vehicle or MRV, as well as for leading the software architecture and design development for the common design and the mission packages, and finally, within common design, for leading integrated product teams in the areas of propulsion, crew stations, survivability, and armor development. The SDD contract includes the design, construction and full-scale testing of prototype vehicles leading up to (but not inclusive of) low-rate initial production.

      (b) FCS Armed Robotic Vehicle (“ARV”). One of three unmanned ground vehicles in FCS, the ARV was awarded to us as a subcontract from Boeing in November 2003 on the basis of our competitive proposal offering. However, for reasons of development cost and technology maturity, the onset of full SDD

7

Table of Contents

      Bofors Defence. United Defense acquired Bofors Weapon Systems, a Swedish Company, in September 2000 from Celsius AB. Subsequent to the acquisition, the name was changed to Bofors Defence. During 2003, Bofors continued to refocus business areas to emphasize Precision Strike and Intelligent Systems. Bofors’ major business areas consist of: Intelligent Ammunition, Launching Systems, Technology Studies, and System Design and Integration. Bofors has retained key competencies in precision strike and intelligent systems and modeling and simulation. In 2003 Bofors was designated as the competency center for Non-Nuclear Electro Magnetic Pulse warheads for Sweden.

      During 2003 Bofors entered serial production for the BONUS Munition. BONUS is a Sensor-Fuzed Weapon capable of defeating armored targets at long range. Work continued in the Cooperative Program (United States and Sweden) for the development of the Intelligent Munition Program, Excalibur, currently under development for the U.S. Army. This work is being carried out by Bofors in conjunction with their U.S. partner, Raytheon Company. They also received a contract to commence the manufacture of an improved sensor for the BONUS Munition.

      Bofors achieved significant breakthroughs with its naval guns in 2003, having entered two key markets, one of which is the United States, with its modern Naval Guns and their companion intelligent ammunition. In the area of Intelligent Systems, Bofors recently received a development contract from the Swedish Government to begin the development of the new Swedish Precision Engagement Field Artillery System and to deliver two prototype systems for test and evaluation. Bofors entered 2004 with a backlog of $172M.

      Munitions. In 2003, United Defense formed a team comprised of members with specific expertise in the areas of munitions development, program pursuit and program execution to address the increasing need to focus the US integration of technologies from Bofors Defense and emerging technologies which could have a significant impact on our core businesses.

      Significant effort was expended on the Course Corrector Fuze, a fuze used in place of existing artillery fuzes to increase the accuracy of existing projectiles. The accuracy improvement is accomplished using simple aerodynamic brakes deployed by a UDLP developed guidance algorithm. In 2003, we also initiated a program to transfer the Bofor Defence/ Giat BONUS Sensor Fuzed Munition to the United States and we entered an exclusive teaming agreement with AeroVironment, Inc. for the development of a “gun-launched UAV” that will provide significant improvements in the observation and targeting at an organic level. Development of all of these products will continue in 2004.

      Military Vehicle Tracks. Most U.S. combat vehicles use a track system composed of linked track shoes which have a steel core and an external rubber surface for traction. We produce the steel components for the tracks on many of the Army’s principal vehicles, including the M1 tank, the BFV, and the M113. Production orders for various track types typically result from DoD programs to build or overhaul the corresponding vehicles, and also from wear and damage occurring in training and military deployments. We typically provide track components as a subcontractor to Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, which provides the rubber elements and then sells the completed track assembly to the government.

      Ship Repair and Maintenance. United States Marine Repair, Inc. (“USMR”) was acquired in July 2002 and its operations comprise our Ship Repair and Maintenance segment. USMR operates a total of six shipyards serving government and commercial customers. Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corporation (“Norshipco’) located in Norfolk, Virginia serves the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet, Military Sealift Command (“MSC’), and numerous commercial customers including Disney Cruise Lines and Maersk Lines. Southwest Marine, Inc. (“SWM’) maintains two shipyards in California, one in Texas, and one at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. SWM’s San Diego shipyard primarily serves the Navy’s Pacific Fleet and also performs some commercial and MSC work. SWM’s San Pedro shipyard performs small commercial projects. SWM’s Ingleside, Texas

8

Table of Contents

      USMR’s shipyards perform a full scope of ship repair, overhaul, and ship modernization services. The projected repairs to restore a ship to its design parameters can be grouped into two main categories. The first category is topside repairs that are performed without lifting the ship out of the water. The second category, called drydock repairs, require that the vessel be raised out of the water in order to access underwater parts of the vessel. Topside jobs include repair or replacement of superstructure plating, restoration of internal piping systems, pump overhauls, ventilation system maintenance, overhauling engines, and preservation of decks and superstructure. Drydock repairs include inspection and repair of tanks, underwater hull valves, ship’s rudder, main propulsion shaft bearings, and sonar domes. In addition, most drydocking projects require blasting and painting of the underwater hull with marine coating systems.

      In addition to repair work, USMR also performs ship modernization to upgrade vessels with new capabilities. The key capabilities required for both repair and modernization contracts include machinery work, electrical work, steel fabrication, piping, and renewal of marine coatings. This work requires us to employ skilled tradesmen such as shipfitters, welders, sheet metal workers, machinists, pipe fitters, and electricians.

      USMR’s largest customer is the U.S. Navy which accounted for approximately 92% and 95% of sales volume in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Contracts with the U.S. Navy include work on military vessels as well as cargo vessels under the control Military Sealift Command. In addition, USMR performs ship repair services for U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Maritime Administration (“MARAD”), U.S. Army, and numerous commercial customers.

      Contracts with the U.S. Navy are predominately for repairs, maintenance, and modifications on surface ships including aircraft carriers (CV or CNV, guided missile cruisers (CG), destroyers (DDG), frigates (FFG), amphibious assault ships (LHA or LHD), amphibious ships (LSD or LPD), minesweepers (MCM or MHC), as well as other less numerous hull classes. The Navy awards most ship repair contracts on a competitive basis using a best value award criteria which considers factors such as the contractor’s proposed price, past performance on similar work, record of quality, planning capabilities, available capacity, and projected final cost. For most Navy work, USMR’s competitors are limited to shipyards within a designated home port area in order for the Navy to limit the travel required by the vessel and its crew during repair downtime.

      Navy ship repair contracts may have either fixed-price or cost-reimbursement terms and may cover only discreet work on a single ship, or multiple tasks on multiple ships over multiple years. Increasingly, the Navy has moved towards multi-ship, multi-year contracts where the shipyard is engaged to perform almost continuous maintenance on specific ships for up to five years. Repair work includes topside and drydock maintenance, vessel modifications and upgrades, as well as non-scheduled emergency repairs. Contracting in this manner allows the Navy to benefit from use of a single supplier of ship repair services for each vessel as well as more consistent levels of quality, faster turnaround for emergency work, and reduced costs associated with learning curves and the shipyard’s familiarity with the vessel. Multi-ship, multi-year contracts have cost-reimbursement terms. During 2002 and 2003 USMR was the prime contractor on multi-ship, multi-year programs covering LPD, LSD, and DDG class vessels in San Diego, LSD class vessels in Norfolk, and MCM class vessels in Ingleside, Texas.

      In addition to Navy contracts, USMR competes for work on most other classes of government vessels including preposition and sealift ships controlled by Military Sealift Command, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, ready reserve fleet vessels, U.S. Army support vessels, and other government owned craft. The most significant contracts during 2002 and 2003 were with Military Sealift Command and included major repair and maintenance work on the vessels USNS Shasta, USNS Diehl in San Francisco and the USNS Lenthall in Norfolk.

9

Table of Contents

      Non-government work includes commercial work on vessels ranging in size from harbor bound tugs and barges to cruise ships, oil tankers, and container ships. The largest commercial contracts performed by USMR during 2002 and 2003 consisted of drydocking work on cruise ships that call on U.S. ports including the Carnival “Elation’, Disney “Magic”, and Royal Caribbean “Vision of the Seas’. A number of factors have hampered commercial sales revenue during 2002 and 2003 including the value of the U.S. dollar and the previous commitments of drydock capacity to the U.S. Navy, particularly in Norfolk. Recent declines in the U.S. dollar have made USMR more competitive with foreign shipyards, particularly those in European countries.

Joint Ventures

      We have a joint venture located in Turkey. In March 2002, we sold our 51% interest in a joint venture in Saudi Arabia described below. The joint ventures are accounted for using the equity method, as we do not control them due to our partner’s veto rights over most operating decisions, but we do have the ability to exercise influence over their operating and financial policies.

      FNSS-Turkey. The FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.S. (“FNSS”) joint venture was formed in 1987 to manufacture and sell armored combat vehicles to the Turkish Army. We own 51% of FNSS. Following completion of an initial contract for 1,698 armored combat vehicles, we received a follow-on contract for 551 additional vehicles in 2000, with deliveries beginning at the end of 2001. In 1998, FNSS signed its first export contract with the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi) to provide 133 vehicles comprised of a mix of forward observation vehicles, engineer squad vehicles and recovery vehicles, with deliveries starting mid 1999 and ending in early 2001. In August 2000, FNSS signed a second major export order to supply 211 vehicles in eleven configurations to the government of Malaysia. This contract also includes co-production through a sublicensee company in Malaysia. The orders for the Turkish government and the Malaysian government provide FNSS with backlog through 2004.

      FNSS is pursuing new business opportunities with the Turkish government for additional armored combat vehicles, wheeled combat vehicles, amphibious vehicles, self-propelled howitzers and tanks, and recovery vehicles. FNSS is also pursuing additional orders with the Jordan and Malaysia which could potentially occur in the near term and orders with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which would occur in the out years and other export opportunities within its licensed territory.

      United Defense Systems-Arabia (“UDS”). For several years, we owned 51% of United Defense Systems, Ltd., a Saudi Arabian company, in partnership with Al-Hejailan Projects Company, Ltd. (“Al-Hejailan”).

      Following the completion of various contracts involving the provision of services to the Saudi government regarding armored combat vehicles, we determined that worsening Saudi financial constraints would continue to diminish the prospects of this joint venture. Accordingly, in March 2003 we completed the sale of our interest in the venture to Al-Hejailan for $405,000. Under the terms of the sale agreement, we ceased receiving any share of the ventures earnings beginning on March 1, 2002.

Research and Development and Engineering Capabilities

      Our Defense Systems segment conducts research and development of new technologies for application to weapon systems and upgrades. Our ability to compete for new Defense Systems contracts depends to a large extent on the success and innovation of our research and development programs.

      The engineering capability of the Defense Systems segment has been a critical component of its success. Extensive experience in simulation, systems integration, armor, mobility, survivability and armaments, as well as our software development, engineering and electronics capabilities, have allowed us to stay at the forefront of the development, manufacture and upgrade of our products and to apply our technologies to other products.

      A recent example of this occurred in 2002, when our Defense Systems segment competed for and won a contract for the development of add-on-armor for the Stryker vehicles that another contractor is producing for the U.S. Army. The contract, which continued through 2003, included design and qualification testing,

10

Table of Contents

      In 2003 we devoted resources to developing two exciting new products that we expect to mature further in 2004. Eagle Vision™, which we developed with Sarnoff Laboratories, provides 360 degrees of electronic, panoramic viewing from inside a closed space or from a remote location. By using multiple cameras that are seamlessly blended and displayed on a head tracked helmet viewing system or other display device, Eagle Vision™is able to provide enhanced situational awareness for the entire vehicle crew. Another key feature of Eagle Vision™ is its ability to detect and track moving objects within a 360 degree area around the vehicle regardless of where the user is looking.

      WaterSentry™, which we have developed with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, offers a continuous detection capability against waterborne toxins by innovatively monitoring the natural activity of green algae and providing a capability to detect a toxin’s presence at the levels anticipated during military conflicts, terrorist attacks on civilian water supplies, or regulatory violations.

      We expended $23.7 million, $27.7 million and $29.8 million on research and development in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, a substantial portion of which was included in overhead allocable to both U.S. Government and foreign government contracts.

Competition

      In the markets we serve, we face a variety of major domestic and foreign competitors. In the Defense Systems segment, competitors include Alvis-Vickers, Ltd., The Boeing Company, General Dynamics Corporation, GIAT, Krauss Maffei Wegmann, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Oto Melara, Raytheon Company, Steyr Daimler Puch, and Textron. In the Ship Repair and Maintenance segment, competitors include General Dynamics Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Metro Machine Corporation, Todd Shipyards Corporation, Earl Industries, Inc., Marine Hydraulics International, Inc., and Deytens Shipyards, Inc.

      We believe that we will continue to be able to compete successfully based upon the quality, technological advancement and cost competitiveness of our products and services. As the electronic and software content of our products increases, we expect to encounter increased competition from electronics and aerospace companies whose activities historically have been largely unrelated to our products and programs. Our ability to compete for new Defense Systems segment contracts depends to a large extent on the success and innovation of our research and development programs, our capability as a systems integrator, whether we can partner with military industrial facilities owned by DoD (known as depots), our ability to offer best value to our government customers, our success in obtaining subcontracts on those programs where we are not the prime contractor, and our readiness in facilities, equipment and personnel to undertake the programs for which we compete. Major factors involved in competition for the Ship Repair and Maintenance segment include the geographic proximity of the ship repair facility and the vessel, technical skills, price, and facility requirements such as dry-docks, cranes, and berthing capabilities.

      In some instances, Defense Systems programs are sole-sourced by the U.S. Government to a single supplier, and in other cases involve a prime contractor and multiple suppliers. In cases where we are the sole-source provider, there may be other suppliers who have the capability to compete for the programs involved, but they can only enter or reenter the market if the U.S. Government should choose to reopen the particular program to competition. Our customers, particularly the industrial facilities operated by the DoD, often compete with us for aftermarket business, such as upgrade work and various overhaul and servicing work we perform.

Major Customers

      Our sales are predominantly derived from contracts with agencies of the U.S. Government. See Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, included in Item 8.

11

Table of Contents

Backlog

      As of December 31, 2003, our funded backlog was approximately $2.1 billion, of which 93% was associated with our Defense Systems segment and 7% with our Ship Repair and Maintenance segment. Funded backlog does not include the awarded but unfunded portion of total contract values. This backlog provides management with a useful tool to project sales and plan its business on an on-going basis. We expect to earn as revenues a substantial majority of the backlog at December 31, 2003 by the end of 2004.

Intellectual Property

      Although we own a number of patents and have filed applications for additional patents, we do not believe that our operations depend significantly upon our patents. In addition, our U.S. Government contracts generally license us to use patents owned by others. Similar provisions in the U.S. Government contracts awarded to other companies make it impossible for us to prevent the use by other companies of our patents in most domestic work. Additionally, we own certain data rights in our products under certain of our government contracts. The protection of data developed by us from use by other government contractors is from time to time a source of negotiation between us and the U.S. Government, and the extent of our data rights in any particular product generally depends upon the degree to which that product was developed by us, rather than with U.S. Government funds. We routinely enter into confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with our employees to protect our trade secrets.

Employees

      At December 31, 2003, we had approximately 7,300 employees and approximately 600 contract workers (excluding employees of our Turkish joint venture). Approximately 2,000 of our employees at nine locations are represented by eleven unions, including the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers (Anniston, Alabama); the International Association of Machinists (Louisville, Kentucky and Santa Clara, California); the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers (Minneapolis, Minnesota); the International Guards (Minneapolis); the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Santa Clara); the United Steelworkers (York, Pennsylvania); Armament Systems Guards Firefighters (Minneapolis); the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (Norfolk, Virginia); the Pacific Coast Metal Trades District Council (San Francisco, California); the Swedish Trade Union Cooperation (Sweden); and the Federation of Salaried Employees in Industry and Services (Sweden). While we have from time to time experienced strikes by our unionized employees, we believe that our relations with such employees are generally good.

Sources and Availability of Raw Materials

      Our manufacturing operations require raw materials, primarily aluminum and steel, which are purchased in the open market and are normally available from a number of suppliers. We purchase a variety of electronic and mechanical components for which we have multiple commercial sources. We have not experienced any significant delays in obtaining timely deliveries of essential raw materials.

Environmental Matters

      Our operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to, among other things, emissions to air, discharges to water, the handling and disposal of hazardous and solid wastes and the cleanup of hazardous substances (“Environmental Laws”). We continually assess our compliance status and believe that our operations currently are in compliance with Environmental Laws.

      Operating and maintenance costs associated with environmental compliance and prevention of pollution at our facilities are a normal, recurring part of operations, are not significant relative to total operating costs or cash flows, and are generally allowable as contract costs under our contracts with the U.S. Government (“Allowable Costs”). Such costs have not been material in the past and, based on information presently available to us and on U.S. Government environmental policies relating to Allowable Costs in effect at this time (all of which are subject to change), are not expected to have a material adverse effect on us.

12

Table of Contents

      Under existing U.S. environmental laws, so-called potentially responsible parties may be jointly and severally liable and, therefore, we are potentially liable to the government or third parties for the full cost of remediating contamination at our sites or at third party sites. In the unlikely event that we were required to fully fund the remediation of a site, the statutory framework would allow us to pursue rights of contribution from other potentially responsible parties for their share.

      As with compliance costs, a significant portion of our expenditures for remediation of existing contamination at our facilities consists of Allowable Costs. As of December 31, 2003, we had accrued approximately $33 million to cover any investigation and/or remediation costs that may not be Allowable Costs under U.S. Government contracts. The amount accrued is based on reasonable estimates, although there is a possibility that amounts in excess of amounts accrued may be incurred. The most significant of the estimated liabilities are related to ongoing remediation efforts.

      One of USMR’s largest facilities is located in San Diego, California. Pursuant to a demand from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, we completed a study of sedimentary contamination in San Diego Bay and we are continuing to perform testing of the contaminated areas for the purpose of establishing clean-up criteria for future remediation work. Once definitive clean-up criteria are established, we expect that we will be required to begin remediation procedures with respect to the contamination. We anticipate that the total cost associated with the remediation phase will range from $6 to $9 million, although it is conceivable that costs could be as high as $30 million if the most stringent clean-up standard were to be adopted. Up to $9 million of such remediation cost, to the extent the costs are not recovered on USMR’s government contracts or from other responsible parties, may be recoverable from USMR’s former shareholders, under an escrow arrangement established in 1997 when the San Diego operation was acquired by USMR. Also a further $15 million escrow fund was established in our 2002 acquisition of USMR, which may be available in respect of USMR’s sediment exposure. We have asserted claims against both escrow funds, primarily on account of the potential remediation exposure of San Diego.

      Pursuant to the terms of the 1997 acquisition of United Defense, L.P., FMC Corporation and Harsco Corporation (collectively, the “Sellers”) are required to reimburse us for 75% of certain remediation costs that are Non-Allowable Costs through the year 2007 for environmental losses we have previously identified to the Sellers. Accordingly, we have recorded a receivable for $1.2 million for which we expect to be reimbursed by the Sellers over approximately the next four years under the terms of the 1997 acquisition agreement.

      Since approximately 1941, we (and, prior to our formation, our predecessors) have operated the Fridley, Minnesota facility. The majority of the Fridley facility is owned by the U.S. Navy (the “Navy property”), but operated by us under contract with and on behalf of the Navy. We own a portion of the facility. Since 1991, the Navy has expended more than $27 million in remediation costs, including site investigation, on the Navy property, and the Navy has indicated that it anticipates spending a further $8.9 million on such matters at the site. The Navy has engaged us in discussions as to whether we should pay a portion of the expenses, and offered to resolve the matter if we would pay 25% of such costs (approximately $8.4 million). We dispute any responsibility for such costs, and also believe that any remediation related costs that we may incur concerning the Navy property would constitute Allowable Costs. However, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the terms on which the matter might ultimately be resolved (whether by settlement, legal proceedings, or otherwise).

Available Information — Corporate Governance Materials

      We make available free of charge on our internet website, our annual report on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. You can find these reports, together with our Code of Ethics, the charters of the committees of our Board of Directors, and other corporate governance information on our website at www.uniteddefense.com under the “Investors” heading.

13

Table of Contents

Risk Factors

      We are a sole-source, prime contractor for many different military programs with the U. S. Department of Defense (“DoD”). We depend heavily on the government contracts underlying these programs. Over its lifetime, a program may be implemented by the award of many different individual contracts and subcontracts. The funding of government programs is subject to congressional appropriation. Although multi-year contracts may be authorized in connection with major procurements, Congress generally appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may continue for several years. Consequently, programs are often only partially funded and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. The government’s termination of, or failure to fully fund, one or more of the contracts for our programs, would have a negative impact on our operating results and financial condition. We also serve as a subcontractor on several military programs that, in large part, involve the same risks as prime contracts.

      We derive revenues predominantly from contracts with agencies of, and prime contractors to, the DoD. Approximately 77% of our sales for the year ended December 31, 2003, were made directly or indirectly to agencies of the U.S. Government, excluding U.S. Foreign Military Sales contracts. Any significant disruption or deterioration in our relationship with the U.S. Government and a corresponding reduction in these contracts would significantly reduce our revenues. See, for example, “Results of Operations — Emerging Trends and Uncertainties” under Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, below.

      In recent years, the trend in combat system design and development appears to be evolving towards the technological integration of various battlefield components, including combat vehicles, command and control network communications, advanced technology artillery systems and robotics. If the U.S. military procurement approach continues to require this kind of overall battlefield combat system integration, we expect to be subject to increased competition from aerospace and defense companies who have significantly greater resources than we do. This trend could create a role for a prime contractor with broader capabilities that would be responsible for integrating various battlefield component systems and potentially eliminating or reducing the role of sole-source providers or prime contractors of component weapon systems. For example, the U.S. Army recently awarded the prime contractor role in its FCS program (discussed below) to The Boeing Company in the capacity of overall integrator for FCS, instead of awarding separate prime contracts for major FCS elements such as ground vehicles, air vehicles, and network electronics.

      See “Results of Operations — Emerging Trends and Uncertainties” under Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, below, for a discussion of the potential impact of the FCS program on our other U.S. Army programs and our overall business prospects.

      As a company engaged primarily in supplying defense-related equipment and services to the U.S. Government, we are subject to business risks specific to our industry. These risks include the ability of the U.S. Government to unilaterally:

	•	suspend or permanently prevent us from receiving new contracts or extending existing contracts based on violations or suspected violations of procurement laws or regulations;

14

Table of Contents

	•	terminate our existing contracts;
	•	reduce the value of our existing contracts;
	•	audit and object to our contract-related costs and fees, including allocated indirect costs;
	•	control, and under certain circumstances, prohibit the export of our products; and
	•	change certain terms and conditions in our contracts.

      The U.S. Government can terminate any of its contracts with us either for its convenience or if we default by failing to perform. Termination for convenience provisions generally enable us to recover only our costs incurred or committed, and settlement expenses and profit on the work completed, prior to termination. Termination for default provisions do not permit these recoveries and make us liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. Government in procuring undelivered items from another source. Our contracts with foreign governments may contain similar provisions.

      As a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to financial audits and other reviews by the U.S. Government of our costs and performance, accounting and general business practices relating to these contracts. Like most large government contractors, we are audited and reviewed on a continual basis. Based on the results of its audits, the U.S. Government may adjust our contract-related costs and fees, including allocated indirect costs. Although adjustments arising from government audits and reviews have not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the past, there can be no assurance that future audits and reviews would not have such effects. In addition, under U.S. Government purchasing regulations, some of our costs, including most financing costs, amortization of goodwill and other intangible assets, portions of our research and development costs, and some marketing expenses may not be reimbursable or allowed in our negotiation of fixed-price contracts. Further, as a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to an increased risk of investigations, criminal prosecution, civil fraud, whistleblower lawsuits and other legal actions and liabilities to which purely private sector companies are not, the results of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

      Our policy is to cooperate with governmental investigations and inquiries regarding compliance matters, and we also make voluntary disclosure of compliance issues to governmental agencies as appropriate. We are currently providing information on compliance matters to various agencies, and we expect to continue to do so in the future. For example, on August 8, 2002 we were served with a grand jury subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The subpoena seeks information relating to a 2000 contract between us and the Italian government for the upgrading of certain amphibious assault vehicles. We believe that the grand jury investigation is directed toward ascertaining whether any violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act occurred in connection with the Italian contract. While management is not aware of any such violation, it is too early for us to determine whether the ultimate outcome of the investigation would have a material adverse impact on our results of operation or financial position.

      We obtain many of our U.S. Government contracts through a competitive bidding process that subjects us to risks associated with:

	•	the frequent need to bid on programs in advance of the completion of their design, which may result in unforeseen technological difficulties and/or cost overruns;
	•	the substantial time and effort, including design, development and marketing activities, required to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that may not be awarded to us, such as the contract for the U.S. Army’s IAV program (now known as the Stryker program); and
	•	the design complexity and rapid rate of technological advancement of defense related products.

      In addition, in order to win the award of developmental programs, we must be able to align our research and development and product offerings with the government’s changing concepts of national defense and defense systems. For example, in recent years, there has been a trend in military procurement toward

15

Table of Contents

      We provide our products and services primarily through fixed-price, cost-plus and time and materials contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2003, fixed-price contracts provided 61% of our revenues, and cost-plus contracts, including time and material contracts, provided 39%.

      In a fixed-price contract, we must fully absorb cost overruns, notwithstanding the difficulty of estimating all of the costs we will incur in performing these contracts and in projecting the ultimate level of sales that we may achieve. Our failure to anticipate technical problems, estimate costs accurately or control costs during performance of a fixed-price contract may reduce the profitability of a fixed-price contract or cause a loss.

      In a cost-plus contract, we are allowed to recover our approved costs plus a fee. The total price on a cost-plus contract is based primarily on allowable costs incurred, but generally is subject to a maximum contract funding limit. U.S. Government regulations require us to notify our customer of any cost overruns or underruns on a cost-plus contract. If we incur costs in excess of the funding limitation specified in the contract, we may not be able to recover those cost overruns.

      On our time and materials contracts, we recover a specific amount per hour worked, the cost of direct materials and subcontracts, and a mark-up on direct materials and subcontracts. Time and materials contracts may provide for not-to-exceed price ceilings as well as the potential that we must partially absorb cost overruns.

      Although we believe that we have recorded adequate provisions in our financial statements for losses on our fixed-price and cost-plus contracts, as required under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, there is no assurance that our contract loss provisions will be adequate to cover all actual future losses.

      The defense and private-sector ship repair industries are highly competitive and we encounter significant domestic and international competition for government contracts from other companies, some of which have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing, manufacturing and distribution resources than we do. Our ability to compete for these contracts depends on:

	•	the effectiveness of our research and development programs;
	•	our ability to offer better program performance than our competitors at a lower cost to the U.S. Government;
	•	the location of our ship repair facilities in relation to U.S. Navy homeports; and
	•	the readiness of our facilities, equipment and personnel to undertake the programs for which we compete.

      Additionally, our U.S. Government programs must compete with programs managed by other defense contractors for limited funding. Our competitors continually engage in efforts to expand their business relationship with the U.S. Government and are likely to continue these efforts in the future. For example, in the private-sector ship repair industry, as the U.S. Navy moves toward greater use of multi-ship, multi-year contracts, the larger size of the contracts to be awarded may attract additional competitors to our market,

16

Table of Contents

      In some instances, the U.S. Government directs to a single supplier all work for a particular program, commonly known as a sole-source program. In those instances, other suppliers who might otherwise be able to compete for various components of the program can only do so if the U.S. Government chooses to reopen the program to competition. While we have derived most of our historical revenues from sole-source programs, we derive and expect to derive a portion of our sales through competitive bidding. In addition, although the U.S. Government has historically awarded certain programs to us on a sole-source basis, it may in the future determine to open such programs to a competitive bidding process. There is no assurance that we will continue to be the sole-source contractor on various programs, that we will compete successfully for specific program opportunities or, if we are successful, that awarded contracts will generate sufficient sales to be profitable. The failure or failures to do so would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

      We expect the U.S. Navy to increase the use of multi-ship, multi-year contracts for the repair and maintenance of the Atlantic Fleet, and the aggressive pursuit of these contracts is an important part of our business strategy. Our ability to win these contracts will depend on a variety of factors, including our cost structure, past performance under these types of contracts on both the East and West Coasts, and our access to additional shipyard facilities for overflow work.

      In our Ship Repair and Maintenance segment, we currently engage in teaming and other agreements that involve either general arrangements with other ship repair companies to allow us access to facilities and employees, or whereby we take subcontracting responsibility for a specific aspect of a larger prime contract. We recently acquired a second dry dock at our Norfolk facility from another area shipyard. The acquisition permits the continued use of the dry dock by the other company and also provides that the U.S. Navy may require us to unwind the acquisition if the subsequent dry dock use does not achieve expected efficiencies. We believe that the ability to participate in many of the U.S. Navy’s future contracts will depend on our ability to maintain and enter into successful agreements within the industry. There is no assurance that our current arrangements would not be terminated or renewed when they expire.

      In our Defense Systems segment, we also make frequent use of teaming agreements. For example, we recently entered into a teaming agreement with Boeing and General Dynamics regarding our role on the manned ground combat vehicle portion of the FCS program. We cannot assure you that we will continue to be selected as a teaming participant, or that we will be able to identify and successfully work with other companies. Failure to maintain or enter into future teaming agreements may have a material adverse effect on our business and future prospects.

      Our operating results and cash flow are dependent, to a material extent, upon the timing of manufacturing and delivery of products under our government contracts. For example, under recent Bradley production contracts, we do not recognize sales on a unit until we deliver or “field” such unit. This extends the period of time during which we carry these vehicles as inventory and may result in an uneven distribution of revenue from these contracts between periods.

17

Table of Contents

      As a result, our period-to-period performance may fluctuate significantly, and you should not consider our performance during any particular period as necessarily indicative of longer-term results. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Results of Operations and Financial Condition — Overview”, Item 7 below.

      The timing and extent of the maintenance and repair of U.S. Navy vessels depends on the maintenance and deployment schedules established by the U.S. Navy for each vessel. While the U.S. Navy tries to evenly distribute repairs throughout the year in a given port, this is not always possible. Therefore, the level of activity in our repair and maintenance facilities and the financial results of our Ship Repair and Maintenance segment can vary significantly from period to period. In addition, U.S. defense-related agencies, including the U.S. Navy, have historically allocated the majority of their budgets during their first and second fiscal quarters, which correspond with our fourth and first fiscal quarters. The timing of these allocations has caused and will likely continue to cause fluctuations in our revenues, profitability, and cash flows.

      The reduction in the U.S. defense budget that began in the early 1990s caused most defense-related government contractors, including our predecessor company, to experience decreased sales, reduced operating margins and, in some cases, net losses. A significant decline in U.S. military expenditures in the future could materially adversely affect our sales and earnings. The loss or significant reduction in government funding for any large program in which we participate could also materially adversely affect our sales and earnings and thus our ability to meet our financial obligations.

      The integration of diverse technologies involved in producing our products is a complex task, which in many instances has not been previously attempted.

      In addition, our ability to integrate the new and complex technologies involved in our products is subject to risks associated with uncertain costs and availability of resources, including:

	•