RAYTHEON CO/ - FORM 10-K - February 10, 2016

Attached files

file	filename
EX-21 - RAYTHEON COMPANY SUBSIDIARIES - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexx21.htm
EX-23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexx23.htm
EX-31.2 - CERTIFICATION OF VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SECTION 302 - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexhibit312.htm
EX-32.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SECTION 906 - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexhibit321.htm
EX-31.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SECTION 302 - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexhibit311.htm
EX-32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SECTION 906 - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexhibit322.htm
EX-12 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES - RAYTHEON CO/	rtn-12312015xexx12.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

__________________________________________________________

FORM 10-K



ý	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 or



¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 1-13699

__________________________________________________________

RAYTHEON COMPANY

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

__________________________________________________________



Delaware	95-1778500
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

870 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

(781) 522-3000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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



Title of Each Class	Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, $.01 par value	New York Stock Exchange

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

None

__________________________________________________________

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ý No ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No ý

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 (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) 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. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer ý Accelerated filer ¨ Non-accelerated filer ¨ Smaller reporting company ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No ý

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 26, 2015, was approximately $29.6 billion.

The number of shares of Common Stock outstanding as of February 8, 2016 was 298,998,000.

Documents incorporated by reference and made a part of this Form 10-K:

Portions of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

INDEX



PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	13
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	22
Item 2.	Properties	22
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	23
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	24
	Executive Officers of the Registrant	24

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	26
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	28
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	29
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	72
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	74
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	123
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	123
Item 9B.	Other Information	123

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	123
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	124
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	124
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	124
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	124

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	124

SIGNATURES		129

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

General

Raytheon Company, together with its subsidiaries, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense and other government markets throughout the world. The terms “we”, “us”, “our”, “Raytheon” and the “Company” mean Raytheon Company and its subsidiaries, unless the context indicates another meaning. We develop technologically advanced and integrated products, services and solutions in our core markets: sensing; effects; command, control, communications, computers, cyber and intelligence (C5I™); mission support; and cybersecurity. We serve both domestic and international customers, primarily as a prime contractor or subcontractor on a broad portfolio of defense and related programs for government customers.

We were founded in 1922 and have grown internally and through a number of acquisitions. We are incorporated in the state of Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 870 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451.

In this section, we describe our business, including our business segments, product lines, customers, operations and other considerations.

Business Segments

We operate in five business segments:


–	Integrated Defense Systems;


–	Intelligence, Information and Services;


–	Missile Systems;


–	Space and Airborne Systems; and


–	Forcepoint.

The following is a description of each of our business segments. As part of the description, we include a discussion of some of the segment’s notable initiatives and achievements in 2015, such as certain key contract awards, new product introductions and acquisitions. For a discussion of the financial performance of our business segments and other financial information, see pages 48-65 of this Form 10-K.

Integrated Defense Systems (IDS)—IDS, headquartered in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, is a leader in integrated air and missile defense; large land- and sea-based radar solutions; command, control, communications, computers, cyber and intelligence (C5I™) solutions; and naval combat and ship electronic systems. IDS delivers combat-proven performance against the complete spectrum of airborne and ballistic missile threats and is a world leader in the technology, development, and production of sensors and mission systems. IDS provides solutions to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as more than 50 international customers which represent approximately half of IDS’s business.

In 2015, IDS booked more than $2.0 billion for a contract to provide advanced Patriot air and missile defense capability for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and a contract for $769 million from the Republic of Korea to upgrade its Patriot Air and Missile Defense (A&MD) systems to the latest configuration. IDS also received contract awards for Patriot A&MD systems for the U.S. Army and for undersea sensor systems for the U.S. Navy.

Effective January 1, 2016, IDS has the following principal product lines: Mission Systems and Sensors (MSS); Integrated Air and Missile Defense; and Seapower Capability Systems. This structure reflects the reorganization of IDS's former Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) product line on January 1, 2016 to more efficiently leverage its capabilities within Raytheon. The reorganization integrated the C5I™ and Thales-Raytheon Systems LLC (TRS LLC) product

Table of Contents

areas from IDS's former C4I product line into the new IDS MSS product line and moved certain air traffic systems, border and critical infrastructure protection and highway tolling programs from IDS's former C4I product line into Raytheon's IIS business segment. See "Intelligence, Information and Services" below for more information on Raytheon's IIS business segment.

Mission Systems and Sensors (MSS)—MSS provides integrated whole-life air and missile defense systems. MSS produces systems and solutions, including Upgraded Early Warning Radars (UEWR), the Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance-Model 2 (AN/TPY-2) and other land-based surveillance and search radars, which provide threat detection, precision tracking, discrimination, and classification of ballistic missile threats. In addition, MSS provides C5I™ solutions through the development, delivery and support of complex integrated, networked, actionable combat command and control solutions for air and land combatant commanders. MSS also includes TRS LLC, the U.S. operating subsidiary of Thales-Raytheon Systems LTD (a joint venture that focuses on battlefield radars and air command and control, including NATO’s Air Command and Control System program). Key MSS customers include the U.S. Army and Air Force, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and international customers.

Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)—IAMD provides combat-proven air and missile defense systems, such as the Patriot A&MD system which is the cornerstone of the air and missile defense architecture for thirteen nations around the globe, including the U.S. and five NATO nations. The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), also offered by IAMD, is a highly adaptable mid-range solution for any operational air defense requirement. It is deployed in the U.S. and five other countries. Key IAMD customers include the U.S. Army and international customers. Total sales from this business area were approximately 10% of our consolidated revenues for 2015, 2014 and 2013.

Seapower Capability Systems (SCS)—SCS is a provider and integrator of maritime air and missile defense radar systems, naval combat management, and airborne anti-submarine and mine warfare systems, as well as sensors, maritime naval navigation systems, and torpedoes for U.S. and international navies. As a naval radar provider, SCS produces the SPY-3, the U.S. Navy's first shipboard active phased array multifunction radar, and radar transmitters for the sea- and land-based Aegis weapon system radars, and is designing and will manufacture the low-rate initial production of the U.S. Navy’s newest radar, Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), which is designated as AN/SPY-6. As a ship integrator for the U.S. Navy, SCS provides mission systems equipment and serves as the combat and mission systems integrator for the DDG-1000, the total ship electronics systems integrator for the LPD-17, the U.S. Navy’s latest amphibious warfare ship, and the warfare systems integrator for the CVN-78, the U.S. Navy’s next generation of aircraft carrier. Key SCS customers include the U.S. Navy and allied navies.

IDS also includes the Advanced Technology Programs (ATP) product line, which executes contract research and development programs primarily with the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in advanced materials, semiconductors such as Gallium Nitride (GaN) and next-generation radar systems such as Flexible Digital Array Radar (FlexDAR), to support Raytheon product lines. ATP also pursues attractive adjacent growth markets such as undersea warfare and directed energy.

Intelligence, Information and Services (IIS)—IIS, headquartered in Dulles, Virginia, provides a full range of technical and professional services to intelligence, defense, federal and commercial customers worldwide. IIS specializes in global Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR); navigation; U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) space and weather solutions; cybersecurity; analytics; training; logistics; mission support; engineering; automation and sustainment solutions; and international and domestic Air Traffic Management (ATM) systems. Key customers include the U.S. Intelligence Community, the U.S. Armed Forces, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and an increasing number of international customers.

During 2015, IIS won a variety of notable unclassified contracts. IIS will provide systems modifications to increase the capability and capacity of the command center of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD); extend new phases of border security solutions in the Philippines and Jordan; provide cybersecurity capabilities for more than 100 federal civilian government agencies under a DHS award, which was protested; and provide lifecycle management for aircrew, maintenance and systems-specific training systems for the DoD. IIS also received a contract award to provide field support for the U.S. Air Force’s distributed common ground system mission. IIS’s Range Generation Next (RGNext) joint venture received a contract award to operate, maintain and sustain the U.S. Air Force’s space launch and test range system. IIS continued

Table of Contents

to grow its classified business, receiving a number of significant contracts. We acquired Foreground Security, a leading provider of virtual security operations centers (SOCs), managed security service solutions and cybersecurity professional services in the federal and commercial markets. Additionally, RCP, formerly part of IIS, was integrated into our Forcepoint business segment in connection with the series of transactions related to our Forcepoint joint venture.

Effective January 1, 2016, IIS has the following principal product lines: Cybersecurity and Special Missions (CSM); Global Training Solutions (GTS); Navigation and Environmental Solutions (NES); Global Intelligence Solutions (GIS); Mission Support and Modernization (MSM); and Transportation and Support Services (TSS). This structure reflects the reorganization of IDS's former C4I product line on January 1, 2016 to more efficiently leverage its capabilities within Raytheon. The reorganization integrated certain air traffic systems, critical infrastructure protection and highway tolling programs from IDS into the new IIS TSS product line. In addition, the reorganization integrated IDS's border security services into IIS's existing MSM product line and moved product support services for other Raytheon businesses from IIS's MSM product line to IIS's new TSS product line.

Cybersecurity and Special Missions (CSM)—CSM provides integrated cybersecurity and advanced intelligence solutions to strengthen information systems and mission execution. CSM designs and implements customized cyber, managed security services, and quick-reaction solutions, as well as high-consequence special missions support, for its domestic, international government and commercial customers. Raytheon leverages and incorporates the cyber capabilities within CSM across the Company by embedding information assurance technologies and know-how into its internal company systems, core solutions and products. CSM’s key customers include the U.S. Intelligence Community, the DoD, various other federal agencies, and international governments.

Global Training Solutions (GTS)—GTS provides training solutions, logistics and engineering support worldwide, principally under the Warfighter Field Operations Customer Support (FOCUS) contract with the U.S. Army. Under this contract, the GTS-led Warrior Training Alliance provides integrated operational training through comprehensive support for live, virtual and constructive training exercises and operations, maintenance for training and range systems, curriculum development and instruction, management oversight and administration for contractor activities, and supply support for government-owned property and material. GTS also provides training solutions to international customers and, through Raytheon Professional Services, provides commercial solutions, processes, tools and training experts to domestic and international commercial customers.

Navigation and Environmental Solutions (NES)—NES primarily supports programs for NASA, NOAA and the U.S. Air Force by implementing secure environmental and navigation ground solutions and data processing. NES capabilities include ground systems for command and control of space assets, large-scale data processing and exploitation, storage architectures, and high-performance data handling and processing systems. Key programs include the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), which supports multiple civil, defense and international polar-orbiting environmental satellites, and the Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control System (GPS-OCX).

Global Intelligence Solutions (GIS)—GIS provides strategic ISR and advanced technology solutions through large-scale satellite command and control, mission planning, constellation management, data processing, mission analytics, and secure data sharing. GIS's highly automated information solutions manage the collection and integration of information across multiple domains. GIS serves members of the Intelligence Community, commercial customers, and international markets.

Mission Support and Modernization (MSM)—MSM provides full life-cycle mission operations, engineering, sustainment and modernization services for site and platform missions across all domains, as well as multi-intelligence (multi-INT) ground systems and unmanned systems technology for the U.S. Armed Forces and civil agencies. MSM’s core services are applied in two broad areas: proven models to support global mission operations more efficiently; and innovative engineering practices that generate affordable modernization and sustainment of mission-critical systems, weapons or platforms. Programs include advanced ground solutions for tactical ISR missions, such as Global Hawk and the U.S. Air Force's U-2 reconnaissance aircraft; services for the U.S. Air Force’s contractor field support; software and avionics solutions for the V-22 Osprey aircraft; border and critical infrastructure security solutions; integrated operations for the NORAD command center, NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Lab and, through its RGNext joint venture, for U.S. Air Force space launch facilities; and upgrades of airborne and sea-based weapons systems and podded aircraft reconnaissance systems.

Table of Contents

Transportation and Support Services (TSS)—TSS develops, delivers and supports domestic and international ATM. TSS is a key provider of ATM solutions including automation, surveillance, and navigation and landing solutions, as well as its Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), to the FAA and the DoD. TSS also provides "all-electronic" highway tolling systems for customers such as the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and select highways in Canada, infrastructure protection with Perimeter Intrusion Detection technology, and product support services for other Raytheon businesses, including system deployment, installation and integration, logistics and training for military and civil customers in over 80 countries.

IIS also includes the Cyber Operations, Development and Evaluation (CODE) Center, an advanced cyber range in which the Company demonstrates, tests and assesses new cyber products and services to determine how they can best integrate into a customer’s Cyber Security Operations Center (CSOC). IIS leverages CODE Center capabilities to drive both internal and external research and development with Governmental entities and commercial cyber protection companies.

Missile Systems (MS)—MS, headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, is a premier developer and producer of missile and combat systems for the armed forces of the U.S. and other allied nations. Leveraging its capabilities in advanced airframes, guidance and navigation systems, high-resolution sensors, surveillance, targeting, and netted systems, MS develops and supports a broad range of advanced weapon systems, including missiles, smart munitions, close-in weapon systems, projectiles, kinetic kill vehicles, directed energy effectors and advanced combat sensor solutions. Key customers include the U.S. Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, the MDA and the armed forces of more than 40 allied nations.

In 2015, MS continued to capture key contract awards from a broad global customer base, including awards totaling more than $1 billion for the Paveway™ program and for the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3®) program. In addition to these awards, MS received significant awards for the next generation development of the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM®) and AIM-9X Sidewinder™ programs. MS completed successful flight tests on the SM-3® program, the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) program and the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6®) program. The Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II™) program also completed a number of successful flight tests, passed the Milestone C review approving production go-ahead, and received the initial low-rate production contract.

MS has the following principal product lines:

Air Warfare Systems (AWS)—AWS products and services enable the U.S. Armed Forces and international customers to attack, suppress and destroy air- and ground-based targets. Products include the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM®), a state-of-the-art, highly dependable and battle-proven air-to-air missile that also has a surface-to-air launch application; the Tomahawk cruise missile, an advanced surface- or submarine-launched cruise missile with loitering and network communication capability; SDB II™, an air-to-ground glide weapon designed to engage moving targets in adverse weather and through battlefield conditions; the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), a family of air-to-ground weapons that employ an integrated GPS/inertial navigation system that guides the weapon to the target; the Paveway™ family of laser- and GPS-guided smart bombs; the AIM-9X Sidewinder™ short-range air-to-air missile; the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy-Jammer (MALD®-J), a stand-off, high endurance electronic warfare decoy/jammer used to deceive and degrade air defenses; the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM®) and the HARM® Targeting System; the Maverick® precision strike missile; and the Griffin®, a small lightweight missile that can be employed from aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, or ships; or ground launched against light targets. Also, AWS partners with Kongsberg Defence Systems on the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), which are over-the-horizon anti-surface warfare weapons systems to be used on various aircraft platforms and ship classes. Total sales from this business area were approximately 10% of our consolidated revenues for 2015 and 2014, and were less than 10% of consolidated revenues for 2013.

Air and Missile Defense Systems (AMDS)—AMDS designs, develops, produces, and supports air defense and ballistic missile defense interceptor systems. AMDS's primary customers are the MDA, the U.S. Navy and various international customers around the world. The product line develops, manufactures, and supports the Standard Missile family of weapons with capabilities ranging from anti-air warfare to ballistic missile defense. AMDS is responsible for multiple versions of the SM-3®, which represent core elements of the MDA's Phased Adaptive Approach to global missile defense, and for the first line of ship-defense weapons including the SM-6®. AMDS, as a sub-contractor to The Boeing Company, builds and supports the EKV, which is part of the U.S. ground-based midcourse defense system that defends against ballistic missile attack. AMDS is the U.S. design agent and partner with Raphael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. on the David’s Sling missile defense system

Table of Contents

for Israel. AMDS is also the production partner for the Iron Dome weapon system. The product line is also involved in other advanced missile defense concepts that seek to keep pace with the evolving ballistic missile threat.

Naval and Area Mission Defense (NAMD)—NAMD offers a complete family of mission solutions for customers around the world. The product line provides highly effective layered ship defense for the navies of more than 30 countries across multiple platforms to counter the anti-ship threats of today and tomorrow. NAMD leverages its proven capabilities to provide forward-operating base defense for the U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine Corps. The product line designs, develops, manufactures, and supports a variety of products that include the Phalanx® Close-In Weapon System (employed afloat and ashore), the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM™) and Launcher System, the SeaRAM® system, Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), and the ESSM® family of missiles for layered ship mission protection against air, subsurface and surface cruise/ballistic missile threats. NAMD continues to leverage its strategic international cooperative partnerships to evolve its existing products and technologies with a goal of addressing the full spectrum of threats.

Land Warfare Systems (LWS)—From precision missiles and munitions to advanced electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, LWS offers integrated mission solutions in the land domain for the U.S. Army, Marine Corps and more than 40 allied nations that provide warfighters the situational awareness and lethality they need to defeat evolving complex threats. LWS’s programs include the Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wireless-guided (TOW®) weapon system, a long-range precision anti-armor/anti-fortification/anti-amphibious-landing weapon system; Javelin, a shoulder-fired, fire-and-forget anti-tank weapon; Stinger, a lightweight, self-contained, fire-and-forget, very short-range air defense system; TALON™ Laser-Guided Rocket, a precision guided munition co-developed with the United Arab Emirates that can be fired both air-to-ground and ground-to-air; Excalibur®, a GPS-guided artillery round designed to provide indirect precision fire for ground forces; enhanced Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System (eLRAS3), a third-generation, multi-sensor system that provides the ability to detect, identify and engage distant targets; a family of light to heavy Thermal Weapon Sights (TWS); and integrated system solutions for combat vehicle upgrade programs including the U.S. Army’s Stryker Fighting Vehicle, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Abrams Main Battle Tank, and the U.S. Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicle-Anti-Tank (LAV-AT) modernization programs.

Advanced Missile Systems (AMS)—AMS focuses on the development and early introduction of next-generation, end-to-end system solutions that support the AWS, NAMD, AMDS and LWS product lines. AMS also pursues opportunities in directed energy and adjacent markets, including the development of force protection solutions, non-kinetic weapons, high-power microwave/millimeter-wave technologies and applications, telemetry systems, collaborative weapons systems, space applications, and hypersonic solutions.

Space and Airborne Systems (SAS)—SAS, headquartered in McKinney, Texas, is a leader in the design and development of integrated sensor and communication systems for advanced missions, including traditional and non-traditional ISR, precision engagement, unmanned aerial operations, and space. Leveraging advanced concepts, state-of-the-art technologies and mission systems knowledge, SAS provides electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, airborne radars for surveillance and fire control applications, lasers, precision guidance systems, signals intelligence systems, processors, electronic warfare systems, communication systems, and space-qualified systems for civil and military applications. Key customers include the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and classified and international customers.

In 2015, SAS strengthened Raytheon’s role as a leader in Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite communications by starting low-rate initial production of communications terminals for the U.S. Air Force’s Family of Advanced Beyond Line of Sight Terminal (FAB-T) program that allows the President of the United States, senior military advisors and combatant commanders to receive and transmit voice, data, imagery and video across the world to support various military operations. This positions Raytheon for opportunities to deploy this critical capability to other existing and future airborne platforms. SAS also continued to advance its next-generation electronic warfare business with successful flight tests of its Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) airborne electronic attack and jamming systems under development for the U.S. Navy, and a series of airborne cyber capability electronic attack flight demonstrations. SAS delivered the 200th APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the F-15 platform, which is used by the U.S. Air Force, Air National Guard and multiple coalition partners around the world. With the Missile Defense Laser Development Program award, which is a precursor to a demonstration program, SAS continues to establish itself as a leader in High Energy Lasers.

Table of Contents

SAS has the following principal product lines, which reflect the merger of the former Tactical Airborne Systems and Integrated Technology Programs product lines into Secure Sensor Solutions (SSS), effective January 4, 2016, to better align with customer demands:

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems (ISRS)—ISRS designs, develops and manufactures an array of EO/IR sensors, light-sensing focal plane arrays, advanced visible and infrared sensors, AESA radars and various integrated systems solutions to provide customers with actionable information for strike, persistent surveillance and special mission applications. These systems perform detection, identification, tracking, targeting, navigation, weather, and situational awareness tasks from a variety of airborne platforms including maritime, littoral and overland patrol aircraft, unmanned aerial systems, and other tactical, attack and transport rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft. Key programs within the ISRS portfolio include the APY-10 radar on the U.S. Navy’s P-8A Poseidon; the Multi-spectral Targeting System on numerous unmanned and manned aircraft; the Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite for the Global Hawk; and the Silent Knight Terrain Following/Terrain Avoiding radar for rotary-wing platforms.

Secure Sensor Solutions (SSS)—SSS designs, manufactures and develops cost-effective, high-performance integrated sensor solutions for tactical and strategic platforms, delivering trusted, actionable information for mission assurance. SSS provides integrated advanced fire control radars to customers including the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force and international governments. SSS produces AESA radars for the U.S. Air Force’s F-15 and B-2 aircraft, the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F and EA-18G and radars for several international customers, which include Australia, Canada, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. SSS also develops sophisticated anti-jam GPS solutions for many customers and provides a wide range of state-of-the-art product families and engineering services in support of the DoD’s need to respond to a dynamic threat environment.

Electronic Warfare Systems (EWS)—EWS designs and manufactures cost-effective, high-performance electronic warfare systems and equipment for strategic and tactical aircraft, helicopters, surface ships and ground forces for the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy, Special Operations Forces, U.S. intelligence agencies and international governments. EWS products deliver a range of non-kinetic effects ranging from radar jamming to information operations. The EWS portfolio includes the NGJ program, integrated electronic warfare suites, development of electronic warfare planning and management tools (EW PMT), the Multi-function Integrated Receiver/Exciter System (MFIRES) product family, advanced classified programs, and products such as towed decoys, radar warning receivers, radar and communications countermeasures, and missile warning sensors.

Integrated Communications Systems (ICS)—ICS is a market leader in tactical airborne communications, software-defined radio technology, advanced tactical networking, and real-time sensor networking. ICS is the only producer of AEHF satellite terminals for all branches of the U.S. military, making it the top provider of protected, highly secure satellite communications terminals for the U.S. military.

Space Systems (SS)—SS designs and manufactures space and space-qualified sensor payloads for large national programs and develops innovative solutions for emerging intelligence, defense and civil space applications. SS provides EO/IR, radio frequency, radar and laser space-based sensors to customers including branches of the DoD, MDA, NASA, classified customers and international governments. Its major non-classified program is the JPSS program providing the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), an advanced imaging and radiometric sensor for NASA and NOAA weather/environmental monitoring programs.

Advanced Concepts Technology (ACT), an innovation incubator, is also part of SAS. ACT conducts internal research and development for SAS and contract research and development for customers, including the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and the DARPA, and produces cutting-edge products including advanced laser weapons systems (high-resolution imaging and directed energy), next-generation all-weather millimeter wave targeting radars, advanced speech recognition with natural language understanding, plus systems exploiting acoustic phenomenology.

Forcepoint—Forcepoint, formerly named Raytheon|Websense, is headquartered in Austin, Texas, and is a global provider of information technology security products and related services designed to protect commercial and government organizations and their customers and other users from external and internal threats, including modern cyber-threats, advanced malware attacks, information leaks, legal liability and productivity loss. Forcepoint is a joint venture company (with Vista Equity Partners) created in May 2015 through a series of transactions by which Raytheon acquired Websense from Vista Equity Partners and combined it with RCP, formerly part of the IIS segment, and then sold a minority interest in the combined company

Table of Contents

to Vista Equity Partners. The new company combines Raytheon's advanced cybersecurity technologies and Websense's industry-leading TRITON platform to provide defense-grade cybersecurity solutions to domestic and international customers.

Forcepoint's customers deploy its software products on standard servers or other information technology hardware, including its optimized appliances, as a software-as-a-service (otherwise referred to as a cloud-based or cloud service) offering, or in a hybrid hardware/cloud configuration. Customers can also purchase scalable behavior-based detection licensed software products for download directly to their servers. Forcepoint's products and related services provide content security to enterprise customers, government entities, small- and medium-sized businesses, public sector entities and internet service providers primarily through a network of distributors and value-added resellers.

Forcepoint has the following principal product families and related services:

TRITON—The TRITON security platform provides advanced content security solutions by integrating Forcepoint's Web, email and data security technologies in a single unified security architecture designed to reduce security risks, improve compliance, protect data, improve productivity and mitigate legal liability at a reduced overall cost of ownership. At the core of the TRITON architecture is the Advanced Classification Engine, which analyzes inbound and outbound Web and email traffic using advanced analytics and contextual awareness to identify and classify security threats, sensitive internal data, and inappropriate content in real time. The TRITON management console unifies policies and enforcement across an organization for Web, email and internal network traffic, creating a consistent security profile and reducing the overall cost of management. TRITON content security solutions include Web, email and combined security gateways with or without integrated data loss prevention, along with functionally equivalent cloud solutions, Websense-optimized appliances for mid-sized and enterprise-class organizations, and stand-alone enterprise data security solutions.

Network Security (NS)—In January 2016, Forcepoint acquired the Stonesoft next-generation firewall (NGFW) and Sidewinder proxy firewall technologies. The Forcepoint Stonesoft product provides NGFW software and hardware solutions that focus on high-availability, centralized management of large networks, and protection from advanced evasion techniques. The Forcepoint Sidewinder product provides proxy-based firewall software and hardware solutions, allowing for clear visibility and control of command filtering, protocol enforcement, and application access.

SureView (SV)—The SV suite of products spans analytics, insider threat, advanced threat protection and Linux security. SV delivers end-to-end visibility, context and the understanding of human and information technology actions required for enterprises and governments to take action and manage risk. SV uniquely combines human and machine learning to prevent insider threats, reduce the amount of time an external threat remains in an organization’s network, and provide actionable intelligence that enables quick mitigation.

Federal Solutions (FS)—In addition to providing the full suite of Forcepoint products to government customers, Forcepoint provides the High Speed Guard (HSG) product which enables highly complex, bi-directional, automated data transfers between multiple domains, specializing in real-time streaming video. HSG has demonstrated the fastest bi-directional transfer rates of more than 9 gigabits per second on dual processor commodity servers.

Web Security and Filtering Solutions (WSFS)—WSFS mitigates the productivity loss and legal exposure associated with unmanaged employee Web use and prevents access to Web sites identified as security risks. These products are deployed in conjunction with an organization's network gateway platform (such as a proxy server or firewall) and manage employee Web use by applying pre-determined policies to Web content classified in more than 95 categories in Forcepoint's master database. The policy management software provides multiple options for monitoring, analyzing and reporting on Internet activity and the risks associated with employee computing.

Hardware and Appliances (HA)—HA provides a mix of commercial-off-the-shelf hardware along with optimized appliances consisting of V-Series appliances that consolidate multiple security functions in a single hardware platform and X-Series appliances that deliver large enterprises real-time data-aware defenses against malware and intellectual property theft. Both appliance series integrate with each other and Forcepoint's cloud platform.

Professional Services (PS)—PS provides consulting services of certified engineers who assess, plan, design, analyze and optimize security solutions, utilizing existing Forcepoint products, for its customers' business environments.

Table of Contents

International Subsidiaries—We conduct the operations and activities of our business segments in certain countries through international subsidiaries, including Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL) and Raytheon Australia (RA). RSL designs, develops, manufactures and integrates a range of high-technology electronic systems in the areas of sensing, effects, command and control, intelligence systems, power management, optics and cyber security for commercial, defense and other government customers in the U.K. and globally. RSL provides ASTOR (Sentinel), a world-class strategic ground surveillance capability; Shadow, a tactical surveillance platform (both with SAS); and Paveway™ IV, the precision guided bomb (with MS). RA delivers integrated mission solutions and sustainment to the Australian Defence Force. With more than 20 programs in-country, RA is the mission systems integrator for the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program and delivers in-service support for the Collins Class Submarine as well as the Australian Defence Air Traffic System (with IIS as of January 1, 2016), and provides aerospace-related design, integration, operations and maintenance services as well as management of the Naval Communications Station Harold E. Holt (with IIS).

Sales to the U.S. Government



(In millions, except percentages)	2015			2014			2013
Sales to the U.S. government⁽¹⁾	$	15,767		$	16,083		$	17,019
Sales to the U.S. government as a Percentage of Total Net Sales⁽¹⁾	68		%	70		%	72		%
Foreign military sales through the U.S. government	$	2,814		$	2,962		$	3,062
Foreign military sales through the U.S. government as a Percentage of Total Net Sales	12		%	13		%	13		%


(1)	Excludes foreign military sales through the U.S. government.

Our principal U.S. government customer is the DoD; other U.S. government customers include other U.S. Intelligence Community agencies, NASA and the FAA.

U.S. Government Contracts and Regulation

We act as a prime contractor or major subcontractor for numerous U.S. government programs. As a result, we are subject to extensive regulations and requirements of the U.S. government agencies and entities that govern these programs, including with respect to the award, administration and performance of contracts under such programs. We are also subject to certain unique business risks associated with U.S. government program funding and appropriations and government contracts, and with supplying technologically-advanced, cutting edge defense-related products and services to the U.S. government.

U.S. government contracts generally are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which sets forth policies, procedures and requirements for the acquisition of goods and services by the U.S. government; department-specific regulations that implement or supplement the FAR, such as the DoD's Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); and other applicable laws and regulations. These regulations impose a broad range of requirements, many of which are unique to government contracting, including various procurement, import and export, security, contract pricing and cost, contract termination and adjustment, audit and product integrity requirements. A contractor's failure to comply with these regulations and requirements could result in reductions to the value of contracts, contract modifications or termination, and the assessment of penalties and fines, and could lead to suspension or debarment, for cause, from U.S. government contracting or subcontracting for a period of time. In addition, government contractors are also subject to routine audits and investigations by U.S. government agencies such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). These agencies review a contractor's performance under its contracts, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. The DCAA and DCMA also review the adequacy of and a contractor's compliance with its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor's accounting, purchasing, property, estimating, earned value management and material management accounting systems. For a discussion of certain risks associated with compliance with U.S. government contract regulations and requirements, see Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K.

U.S. government contracts include both cost reimbursement and fixed-price contracts. Cost reimbursement contracts, subject to a contract-ceiling amount in certain cases, provide for the reimbursement of allowable costs plus the payment of a fee. These contracts fall into three basic types: (i) cost plus fixed fee contracts which provide for the payment of a fixed fee irrespective of the final cost of performance; (ii) cost plus incentive fee contracts which provide for increases or decreases in the fee, within specified limits, based upon actual cost results compared to contractual cost targets; and (iii) cost plus award fee contracts which provide for the payment of an award fee determined at the discretion of the customer based upon the performance of the contractor against pre-established criteria. Under cost reimbursement type contracts, the contractor is

Table of Contents

reimbursed periodically for allowable costs and is paid a portion of the fee based on contract progress. Some costs incidental to performing contracts have been made partially or wholly unallowable for reimbursement by statute, the FAR or other regulation. Examples of such costs include charitable contributions, certain merger and acquisition costs, lobbying costs, interest expense and certain litigation defense costs. We also classify time-and-materials (T&M) contracts as cost reimbursement contracts as they are typically used to cover the contract cost plus a set amount of fee.

Fixed-price contracts are either firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts or fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts. Under FFP contracts, the contractor agrees to perform a specific scope of work for a fixed price and as a result, benefits from cost savings and carries the burden of cost overruns. Under FPI contracts, the contractor shares with the U.S. government savings accrued from contracts performed for less than target costs and costs incurred in excess of targets up to a negotiated ceiling price (which is higher than the target cost) and carries the entire burden of costs exceeding the negotiated ceiling price. Accordingly, under such contracts, the contractor's profit may also be adjusted up or down depending upon whether specified cost objectives are met. Under FFP and FPI type contracts, the contractor usually receives either performance-based payments (PBPs) equaling up to 90% of the contract price or monthly progress payments from the U.S. government generally in amounts equaling 80% of costs incurred under U.S. government contracts. The remaining amount, including profits or incentive fees, is billed upon delivery and acceptance of end items under the contract. The DoD has expressed a preference to utilize progress payments based on costs incurred on new fixed-price contract awards as opposed to PBPs unless the contractor negotiates for PBPs. Generally speaking and subject to a number of factors, PBPs can provide improved cash flows as compared to progress payments but introduce risk to contractors in return. The DoD has also expressed a preference to utilize FPI as opposed to FFP contracts. In the event we experience a greater proportion of FPI contracts and/or progress payments for our fixed-price DoD contracts in the future than historically, it could have an adverse effect on our operating margins, cash flow and liquidity. For a discussion of certain risks associated with fixed-price and cost reimbursement contracts and risks associated with changes in U.S. government procurement rules, regulations and business practices, see Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K.

U.S. government contracts generally also permit the government to terminate the contract, in whole or in part, without prior notice, at the U.S. government's convenience or for default based on performance. If a contract is terminated for convenience, the contractor is generally entitled to payments for its allowable costs and will receive some allowance for profit on the work performed. If a contract is terminated for default, the contractor is generally entitled to payments for its work that has been accepted by the U.S. government, but a termination arising out of our default could expose us to liability and have a negative impact on our ability to obtain future contracts and orders. The U.S. government's right to terminate its contracts has not had a material adverse effect upon our operations, financial condition or liquidity. For a discussion of the risks associated with the U.S. government's right to terminate its contracts, see Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K.

U.S. government programs generally are implemented by the award of individual contracts and subcontracts. Congress generally appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may extend across several fiscal years. Consequently, programs are often only partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. The contracts and subcontracts under a program generally are subject to termination for convenience or adjustment if appropriations for such programs are not available or change. The U.S. government is required to equitably adjust a contract price for additions or reductions in scope or other changes ordered by it. For a discussion of the risks associated with program funding and appropriations, see Item 1A “Risk Factors” and “Overview” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K. In addition, because we are engaged in supplying technologically-advanced, cutting edge defense-related products and services to the U.S. government, we are subject to certain business risks, some of which are specific to our industry. These risks include: the cost of obtaining and retaining trained and skilled employees; the uncertainty and instability of prices for raw materials and supplies; the problems associated with advanced designs, which may result in unforeseen technological difficulties and cost overruns; and the intense competition and the constant necessity for improvement in facility utilization and personnel training. Our sales to the U.S. government may be affected by changes in procurement policies, budget considerations, changing priorities for national defense, political developments abroad and other factors. See Item 1A “Risk Factors” and “Overview” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K for a more detailed discussion of these and other related risks.

We are also involved in U.S. government programs, principally through our IIS and SAS business segments, that are classified by the U.S. government and cannot be specifically described in this Form 10-K. The operating results of these classified programs are included in the applicable business segment's and our consolidated results of operations. The business risks and considerations associated with these and our international classified programs generally do not differ materially from those of our other U.S. government and international programs and products.

Table of Contents

We are subject to government regulations and contract requirements that may differ from U.S. government regulation with respect to our sales to non-U.S. customers. See “International Sales” below for more information regarding our sales outside of the U.S. and Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks associated with international sales.

International Sales



(In millions, except percentages)	2015			2014			2013
Total international sales⁽¹⁾	$	7,150		$	6,541		$	6,446
Total international sales as a Percentage of Total Net Sales⁽¹⁾	31		%	29		%	27		%


(1)	Includes foreign military sales through the U.S. government of $2,814 million, $2,962 million and $3,062 million in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

International sales were principally in the areas of air and missile defense systems, missile systems, airborne radars, naval systems, air traffic control systems, electronic equipment, computer software and systems, personnel training, equipment maintenance and microwave communications technology, cybersecurity, and other products and services permitted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Generally, we internally fund our foreign subsidiary working capital requirements in the applicable countries. Sales and income from international operations and investments are subject to U.S. government laws, regulations and policies, including the ITAR, the EAR and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other anti-corruption laws and the export laws and regulations described below. They are also subject to foreign government laws, regulations and procurement policies and practices, which may differ from U.S. government regulation, including import-export control, technology transfer, investments, exchange controls, repatriation of earnings and requirements to expend a portion of program funds in-country through manufacturing agreements or other financial support obligations, known as offset obligations. In addition, embargoes, international hostilities and changes in currency and commodity values can also impact our international sales. Exchange restrictions imposed by various countries could restrict the transfer of funds between countries, us and our subsidiaries. We have acted to protect ourselves against various risks through insurance, foreign exchange contracts, contract provisions, government guarantees and/or progress payments. Our international sales in functional currencies other than the U.S. dollar were approximately $1.3 billion, $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, the majority of which were in British pounds and Australian dollars with the remainder primarily in euros and Canadian dollars. See total net sales and property, plant and equipment by geographical area set forth in “Note 16: Business Segment Reporting” within Item 8 of this Form 10‑K.

In connection with certain foreign sales, we utilize the services of sales representatives who are paid commissions in return for services rendered, and international consultants who are paid a fixed retainer fee. Our Forcepoint joint venture also sells certain products and services, both domestically and internationally, primarily through a network of distributors and value-added resellers.

Depending on the type of international sale, Raytheon must either seek various approvals from the U.S. government under the foreign military sales process or may require an export authorization and the issuance of a license by either the U.S. Department of State under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (formerly the Foreign Military Sales Act) and its implementing regulations under the ITAR, the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act and its implementing regulations under the EAR as kept in force by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), and/or the U.S. Department of the Treasury under IEEPA or the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. Such licenses may be denied for reasons of U.S. national security or foreign policy. In the case of certain exports of defense equipment and services, the Department of State must notify Congress at least 15–30 days (depending on the identity of the importing country that will utilize the equipment and services) prior to authorizing such exports. During that time, Congress may take action to block or delay a proposed export by joint resolution which is subject to Presidential veto. Additional information regarding the risks associated with our international business is contained in Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K.

Classified Sales

Classified sales include U.S. government sales on programs designated as classified by the U.S. government, as well as international sales on programs for which the customer, end user or end product is prohibited from being publicly disclosed. Total classified sales were 16% in 2015 and 15% in 2014 and 2013.

Table of Contents

Backlog



					% of Total Backlog⁽³⁾
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2015		2014
Total backlog to the U.S. government⁽¹⁾	$	19,228	$	19,477	55	%	58	%
Total non-U.S. government domestic backlog	631		544		2	%	2	%
Total domestic backlog	19,859		20,021		57	%	60	%
Total foreign military sales backlog	5,685		6,337		16	%	19	%
Total direct foreign government backlog	8,240		6,684		24	%	20	%
Total non-government foreign backlog	885		529		3	%	2	%
Total international backlog⁽²⁾	14,810		13,550		43	%	40	%
Total backlog	$	34,669	$	33,571	100	%	100	%


(1)	Excludes foreign military sales backlog through the U.S. government.


(2)	Includes foreign military sales backlog through the U.S. government.


(3)	Percentages may not foot due to rounding.

Approximately $17.2 billion of the December 31, 2015 year-end backlog is not expected to be filled during the following twelve months. These amounts include both funded backlog (unfilled orders for which funding is authorized, appropriated and contractually obligated by the customer) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding has not been appropriated or obligated to us). For additional information related to backlog figures, see “Segment Results” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Research and Development

We conduct extensive research and development activities to continually enhance our existing products and services and develop new products and services to meet our customers’ changing needs and requirements, and address new market opportunities. During 2015 we expended $706 million on research and development efforts compared to $500 million and $465 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. These expenditures principally have been for product development for the U.S. government. We also conduct funded research and development activities under U.S. government contracts which are included in total net sales. For additional information related to our research and development activities, see “Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” within Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Raw Materials, Suppliers and Seasonality

We are dependent upon the availability of materials and major components and the performance of our suppliers and subcontractors. Some products require relatively scarce raw materials. We generally have not experienced significant difficulties in procuring the necessary raw materials, components and other supplies for our products.

In addition, we must comply with specific procurement requirements which may, in effect, limit the suppliers and subcontractors we may utilize. In some instances, for a variety of reasons, we are dependent on sole-source suppliers. We enter into long-term or volume purchase agreements with certain suppliers and take other actions to ensure the availability of needed materials, components and subsystems. We are also dependent on suppliers to provide genuine original equipment manufacturer parts and have a robust set of standardized policies to detect counterfeit material, especially electronic components, throughout our supply chain.

In recent years, our revenues in the second half of the year have generally exceeded revenues in the first half. Some of the factors that can affect revenue recognition between accounting periods include the timing of new program awards (including international contract awards and approvals), the availability of U.S. government funding, product deliveries (which are dependent on availability of materials) and customer acceptance. We expect this trend to continue in 2016.

Competition

We directly participate in most major areas of development in the defense and government electronics, space, information technology and technical services and support markets. Technical superiority, reputation, price, past performance, delivery schedules, financing and reliability are among the principal competitive factors considered by customers in these markets. We also compete in the commercial cybersecurity market, which is characterized by rapid changes in technology, products, customer specifications and industry standards. We compete worldwide with a number of U.S. and international companies

Table of Contents

in these markets, some of which may have more extensive or more specialized engineering, manufacturing and marketing capabilities than we do in some areas. We frequently partner on various programs with our major suppliers, some of whom are, from time to time, competitors on other programs. In addition, U.S. defense spending levels in the future are increasingly difficult to predict. Changes in U.S. defense spending may potentially limit certain future market opportunities. See Item 1A “Risk Factors” and “Overview” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K for a more detailed discussion of these and other related risks.

Intellectual Property

We own an intellectual property portfolio that includes many U.S. and foreign patents, as well as unpatented trade secrets and know-how, data, software, trademarks and copyrights, all of which contribute to the preservation of our competitive position in the market. In certain instances, we have augmented our technology base by licensing the proprietary intellectual property of others. We also license our intellectual property to others, including our customers, in certain instances. The U.S. government has licenses in certain of our intellectual property, including certain patents, developed in the performance of U.S. government contracts, and has the right to use and authorize others to use such intellectual property, including the inventions covered by such patents for U.S. government purposes. While our intellectual property rights in the aggregate are important to our operations, we do not believe that any particular trade secret, patent, trademark, copyright, license or other intellectual property right is of such importance that its loss or termination would have a material effect on our business.

Employment

As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately 61,000 employees. Approximately 7% of our employees are unionized. We consider our union-management relationships to be generally satisfactory.

Environmental Regulation

Our operations are subject to and affected by a variety of international, federal, state and local environmental protection laws and regulations. We have provided for the estimated cost to complete remediation—or, in the case of multi-party sites, our reasonably expected share thereof—where we have determined that it is probable that we will incur such costs in the future in connection with (i) facilities that are now, or were previously, owned or operated by us, (ii) sites where we have been named a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or similarly designated by other environmental agencies, or (iii) sites where we have been named in a cost recovery or contribution claim by a non-governmental third party. It is difficult to estimate the timing and ultimate amount of environmental cleanup costs to be incurred in the future due to the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the discovery and application of innovative remediation technologies, and the status and interpretation of laws and regulations.

If we are ultimately found to have liability at a multi-party site where we have been designated a PRP or have been named in a cost recovery or contribution claim from a non-governmental third party, we expect that the actual costs of remediation will be shared with other PRPs. Generally in the U.S. and certain other countries, PRPs that are ultimately determined to be responsible parties are strictly liable for site clean-up and usually agree among themselves to share, on an allocated basis, the costs and expenses for investigation and remediation of hazardous materials. Under existing U.S. environmental laws, responsible parties are usually jointly and severally liable and, therefore, potentially liable for the full cost of funding such remediation. In the unlikely event that we are required to fund the entire cost of such remediation, the statutory framework provides that we may pursue rights of contribution from the other PRPs. The amounts we record do not reflect the unlikely event that we would be required to fund the entire cost of such remediation, nor do they reflect the possibility that we may recover some of these additional environmental costs from insurance policies or from other PRPs. However, a portion of these costs is eligible for future recovery through the pricing of our products and services to the U.S. government.

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

Most of the U.S. laws governing environmental matters include criminal provisions. If we were to be convicted of a criminal violation of certain U.S. federal environmental statutes, including the Federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the

Table of Contents

facility or facilities involved in the violation would be placed by the EPA on the “Excluded Parties List” maintained by the Government Services Administration. The listing would continue until the EPA concluded that the cause of the violation had been cured. Listed facilities cannot be used in performing any U.S. government contract awarded during any period of listing by the EPA.

Additional information regarding the effect of compliance with environmental protection requirements and the resolution of environmental claims against us and our operations is contained in Item 1A “Risk Factors,” “Commitments and Contingencies” within Item 7 and “Note 11: Commitments and Contingencies” within Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Available Information

Our internet address is www.raytheon.com. We use our Investor Relations website as a routine channel for distribution of important information, including news releases, analyst presentations and financial information. We make available free of charge on or through our Investor Relations website our annual reports and quarterly reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q (including related filings in XBRL format), current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our SEC filings are also at the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC also maintains an internet site at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding registrants that file electronically, including Raytheon.

Additionally, we also make available on or through our website copies of our key corporate governance documents, including our Governance Principles, Certificate of Incorporation, By-laws and charters for the Audit Committee, Management Development and Compensation Committee, Governance and Nominating Committee, Public Affairs Committee and Special Activities Committee of the Board of Directors and our code of ethics entitled “Code of Conduct.” Raytheon stockholders may request free copies of these documents from our Investor Relations Department by writing to Raytheon Company, Investor Relations, 870 Winter Street, Waltham, MA 02451, or by calling (781) 522-5123 or sending an email request to invest@raytheon.com.

The content on any website referred to in this Form 10-K is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K unless expressly noted.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

This Form 10-K and the information we are incorporating by reference contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws, including information regarding our financial outlook, future plans, objectives, business prospects, products and services, trends and anticipated financial performance including with respect to our liquidity and capital resources; our bookings and backlog; our pension expense and funding, including our FAS/CAS pension adjustments for 2016 and future years and other pension contributions; the impact of new accounting pronouncements; our expected tax payments for 2016; our unrecognized tax benefits; the impact and outcome of audits and legal and administrative proceedings, claims, investigations, commitments and contingencies; the impact of acquisitions; and the impact of changes in fair value of our reporting units; as well as information regarding domestic and international defense spending, budgets and business practices. You can identify these statements by the fact that they include words such as “will,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” or variations of these words, or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are not statements of historical facts and represent only our current expectations regarding such matters. These statements inherently involve a wide range of known and unknown uncertainties. Our actual actions and results could differ materially from what is expressed or implied by these statements. Specific factors that could cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those set forth below and other important factors disclosed previously and from time to time in our other filings with the SEC. Given these factors, as well as other variables that may affect our operating results, you should not rely on forward-looking statements, assume that past financial performance will be a reliable indicator of future performance, or use historical trends to anticipate results or trends in future periods. We expressly disclaim any obligation or intention to provide updates to the forward-looking statements and the estimates and assumptions associated with them.

Table of Contents

We depend on the U.S. government for a substantial portion of our business, and changes in government defense spending and priorities could have consequences on our financial position, results of operations and business.

In 2015, U.S. government sales, excluding foreign military sales, accounted for approximately 68% of our total net sales. Our revenues from the U.S. government largely result from contracts awarded to us under various U.S. government programs, primarily defense-related programs with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), as well as a broad range of programs with the U.S. Intelligence Community and other departments and agencies. The funding of our programs is subject to the overall U.S. government policies, budget and appropriation decisions and processes which are driven by numerous factors, including geo-political events, macroeconomic conditions, and the ability of the U.S. government to enact relevant legislation, such as appropriations bills and accords on the debt ceiling.

In recent years, U.S. government appropriations have been affected by larger U.S. government budgetary issues and related legislation. In 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which established specific limits on annual appropriations for fiscal years (FY) 2012–2021. Pursuant to the BCA, which was amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), the FY 2013 DoD budget was reduced by 7.8% as compared to FY 2012, and the DoD budget remained essentially flat for FY 2014 and 2015. While the BBA provides for stability and modest growth to the DoD budget through FY 2017, future spending levels are uncertain. In addition, in recent years the U.S. government has been unable to complete its budget process before the end of its fiscal year, resulting in both a governmental shut-down and Continuing Resolutions to extend sufficient funds only for U.S. government agencies to continue operating. Additionally, while the BBA eliminates the debt ceiling through FY 2017, the national debt has recently threatened to reach the statutory debt ceiling, and such an event in future years could result in the U.S. government defaulting on its debts.

As a result, defense spending levels are difficult to predict beyond the near-term due to numerous factors, including the external threat environment, future governmental priorities and the state of governmental finances. Significant changes in defense spending or changes in U.S. government priorities, policies and requirements could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Our financial results largely are dependent on our ability to perform on our U.S. government contracts, which are subject to uncertain levels of funding and timing, as well as termination. Our financial results could also be affected by development delays, cost overruns or product failures in connection with these contracts.

Our financial results largely are dependent on our performance under our U.S. government contracts. While we are involved in numerous programs and are party to thousands of U.S. government contracts, the termination of one or more of such contracts, or the occurrence of delays, cost overruns and product failures in connection with one or more large contracts, could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. Furthermore, we can give no assurance that we would be awarded new U.S. government contracts to offset the revenues lost as a result of termination of any of our contracts.

U.S. government contracts generally permit the government to terminate the contract, in whole or in part, without prior notice, at the U.S. government's convenience or for default based on performance. If one of our contracts is terminated for convenience, we would generally be entitled to payments for our allowable costs and would receive some allowance for profit on the work performed. If one of our contracts is terminated for default, we would generally be entitled to payments for our work that has been accepted by the U.S. government. A termination arising out of our default could expose us to liability and have a negative impact on our ability to obtain future contracts and orders. Furthermore, on contracts for which we are a subcontractor and not the prime contractor, the U.S. government could terminate the prime contract for convenience or otherwise, irrespective of our performance as a subcontractor.

The funding of U.S. government programs is subject to congressional appropriations, which are made on a fiscal year basis even for multi-year programs. Consequently, programs are often only partially funded initially and may not continue to be funded in future years. In addition, regular appropriation bills may be delayed, which may result in revenue collection delays or delays in our contract performance due to lack of funds to procure related products and services. Under certain circumstances, we may use our own funds to meet our customer's desired delivery dates or other requirements. Furthermore, if appropriations for one of our programs become unavailable, or are reduced or delayed, the U.S. government may terminate our contract or subcontract under such program.

Table of Contents

Our U.S. government contracts also typically involve the development, application and manufacture of advanced defense and technology systems and products aimed at achieving challenging goals. New technologies may be untested or unproven. In some instances, product requirements or specifications may be modified. As a result, we may experience technological and other performance difficulties, which may result in delays, setbacks, cost overruns and product failures, in connection with performing our U.S. government contracts. Additionally, in order to win certain U.S. government contracts, we may be required to invest in development prior to award as our customers demand more mature and proven solutions. These additional investment amounts may not be recouped if we are not chosen for new contract awards.

Our U.S. government contracts are typically either fixed-priced contracts or cost reimbursable contracts. Fixed-price contracts represent approximately 65% of our backlog, and are either firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts or fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts. Under FFP contracts, we receive a fixed price irrespective of the actual costs we incur and we therefore carry the burden of any cost overruns. Under FPI contracts, we carry the burden of cost overruns in excess of a negotiated cost ceiling, and share with the U.S. government any costs incurred in excess of a negotiated cost target up to the cost ceiling amount. Under cost reimbursable contracts, we are reimbursed for allowable costs and paid a fixed or performance-based fee, but generally are not reimbursed for costs not allowable under the contract or applicable regulations or unauthorized costs above any cost ceiling amount. Due to the nature of our work under many of our U.S. government contracts discussed above, we may experience unforeseen technological difficulties and cost overruns. If we are unable to control costs or if our initial cost estimates are incorrect, our profitability could be negatively affected, particularly under fixed-price development contracts. Some of our U.S. government contracts have provisions relating to cost controls and audit rights, and if we fail to meet the terms specified in those contracts, we may not realize their full benefits. Our contracts also require us to comply with extensive and evolving procurement rules and regulations, which are discussed in more detail below.

In addition, we are involved in programs that are classified by the U.S. government, principally through our IIS and SAS business segments, which have security requirements that place limits on our ability to discuss our performance on these programs, including any risks, disputes and claims.

Our future success depends on our ability to develop new offerings and technologies for our current and future markets.

To achieve our business strategies and continue to grow our revenues and operating profit, we must successfully develop new offerings and technologies or adapt or modify our existing offerings and technologies for our current core defense markets and our future markets, including new international, civil, commercial, growth and emerging markets. Accordingly, our future performance depends on a number of factors, including our ability to:


-	Identify the needs of, and growth opportunities in, new and emerging markets;


-	Identify emerging technological and other trends in our current and future markets;


-	Identify additional uses for our existing technology to address customer needs in our current and future markets;


-	Develop and maintain competitive products and services for our current and future markets;


-	Enhance our offerings by adding innovative features that differentiate our offerings from those of our competitors;


-	Develop, manufacture and bring solutions to market quickly at cost-effective prices;


-	Enhance product designs for export and releasability to international markets; and


-	Effectively structure our businesses, through the use of joint ventures, collaborative agreements and other forms of alliances, to reflect the competitive environment.

We believe that, in order to remain competitive in the future, we will need to continue to invest significant financial resources to develop new offerings and technologies or to adapt or modify our existing offerings and technologies, including through customer funded and internal research and development, acquisitions and joint ventures or other teaming arrangements. We believe this is true to meet demands and expand within both our domestic and international markets. These expenditures could divert our attention and resources from other projects, and we cannot be sure that these expenditures will ultimately lead to the timely development of new offerings and technologies or identification of and expansion into new markets. Due to the design complexity of our products, we may in the future experience delays in completing the development and introduction of new products. Any delays could result in increased costs of development or deflect resources from other projects. In addition, there can be no assurance that the market for our offerings will develop or continue to expand or that we will be successful in newly identified markets as we currently anticipate or that the acquisitions, joint ventures or other teaming arrangements we may enter into in pursuit of developing new offerings and technologies will be successful. The failure of our technology

Table of Contents

to gain market acceptance could significantly reduce our revenues and harm our business. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that our competitors will not develop competing technologies which gain market acceptance in advance of our products.

Additionally, the possibility exists that our competitors might develop new technology or offerings that might cause our existing technology and offerings to become obsolete. If we fail in our new product development efforts or our products or services fail to achieve market acceptance more rapidly than our competitors, our ability to procure new contracts could be negatively impacted, which would negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Competition within our markets may reduce our revenues and market share and limit our future market opportunities.

We operate in highly competitive markets and our competitors may have more extensive or more specialized engineering, manufacturing and marketing capabilities than we do in some areas. We anticipate increased competition in our core markets as a result of continued defense industry consolidation, including cross-border consolidation of competition, which has enabled companies to enhance their competitive position against us. We are also facing heightened competition in our domestic and international markets from foreign and multinational firms. In addition, as discussed in more detail above, increased pressure to limit U.S. defense spending and changes in the U.S. government procurement environment may limit certain future market opportunities for us. For example, the DoD increasingly is committed to awarding contracts through competitive bidding and relying on competitive contract award types. Additionally, some customers, including the DoD, are increasingly turning to commercial contractors, rather than traditional defense contractors, for information technology and other support work. If we are unable to continue to compete successfully against our current or future competitors in our core markets, we may experience declines in revenues and market share which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. In addition, due to the current competitive environment, we continue to see an increase in bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards. Generally, a bid protest will delay the start of contract activities, delay earnings, and could result in the award decision being overturned, requiring a re-bid of the contract.

In addition, we formed Forcepoint in May 2015, our cybersecurity joint venture discussed in more detail below, to accelerate our growth in the commercial cybersecurity market. However, there can be no assurance that Forcepoint will meet our expectations. Additionally, the commercial cybersecurity market is characterized by rapid changes in technology, products, customer specifications and industry standards, and Forcepoint may not be able to successfully and timely develop new products and services or adapt its current offerings to such changes in order to compete effectively. In addition, Forcepoint's revenues are dependent on third-party sales channels as well as its internal sales force, and there can be no assurance that these sales efforts will be successful. If Forcepoint is unable to compete successfully in the commercial cybersecurity market, it may divert financial and management resources that would otherwise be used to benefit our other operations.

As a U.S. government contractor, we are subject to extensive procurement rules and regulations. Changes in such rules, regulations and business practice could negatively affect current programs and potential awards, and our business could be negatively affected if we fail to comply with any procurement rules and regulations.

U.S. government contractors must comply with specific procurement regulations and other requirements including export-import control, security, contract pricing and cost, contract termination and adjustment, audit and product integrity requirements. These requirements impact our performance and compliance costs. In addition, the U.S. government has and may continue to implement initiatives focused on efficiencies, affordability and cost growth and other changes to its procurement practices which may negatively affect our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, and could affect whether and, if so, how we pursue certain opportunities and the terms under which we are able to do so.

For example, in April 2015 the DoD initiated Better Buying Power 3.0 (BBP), which reiterates the DoD’s previously-announced preferences with respect to contractual payment and cost reimbursement terms, and contractor independent research and development efforts. BBP maintains a preference for incentive-based contracts that set cost and profit targets and require contractors to share cost overruns and underruns with the U.S. government. BBP also indicates a preference for progress payments, which are usually lower than performance-based payments and would thus affect the timing of our cash flows.

In addition, failure to comply with the procurement regulations and requirements could result in reductions of the value of contracts, contract modifications or termination, cash withholds on contract payments, forfeiture of profits, and the assessment of civil and criminal penalties and fines, which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. Our failure to comply with these regulations and requirements could also lead to suspension or debarment, for cause,

Table of Contents

from U.S. government contracting or subcontracting for a period of time. Among the causes for debarment are violations of various statutes, including those related to procurement integrity, export control, U.S. government security regulations, employment practices, protection of the environment, accuracy of records and the recording of costs, and foreign corruption. The penalties or sanctions resulting from any failure to comply with applicable requirements, including contract termination, could have a negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, and could have a negative impact on our reputation and ability to procure other U.S. government contracts in the future.

Issues with component availability, subcontractor performance or key supplier performance may affect our ability to manufacture and deliver our products and services.

We are dependent upon the delivery by suppliers of materials and the assembly by subcontractors of major components and subsystems used in our products in a timely and satisfactory manner and in full compliance with applicable terms and conditions. Some products require relatively scarce raw materials. We also are subject to specific procurement requirements that limit the types of materials we use and may, in effect, limit the suppliers and subcontractors we may utilize. These procurement requirements include restrictions on the use of certain chemicals in the European Union and requirements for genuine original equipment manufacturer parts. As we continue to seek further cost efficiencies throughout the enterprise, we may centralize procurements in order to attain better pricing through strategic sourcing, which may increase our dependency on certain suppliers. In some instances, we are dependent on sole-source suppliers. If certain component materials are not available or if any of these suppliers or subcontractors otherwise fails to meet our needs or becomes insolvent, we may not have readily available alternatives or alternatives at prices that meet the demands of our customers. While we enter into long-term or volume purchase agreements with certain suppliers and take other actions, such as accelerating supplier payments commensurate with value delivered, to ensure financial viability and the availability of needed materials, components and subsystems, we cannot be sure that such items will be available in the quantities we require, if at all. In addition, some of our suppliers or subcontractors, especially smaller entities, may be susceptible to changes in global economic conditions that could impair their ability to meet their obligations to us. If we experience a material supplier or subcontractor problem, our ability to satisfactorily and timely complete our customer obligations could be negatively impacted, which could result in reduced sales, termination of contracts and damage to our reputation and relationships with our customers. We could also incur additional costs in addressing such a problem. Any of these events could have a negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. In addition, we must conduct diligence and provide disclosure regarding the use of certain minerals, known as conflict minerals, which may impact our procurement practices and increase our costs.

Our international business is subject to geopolitical and economic factors, regulatory requirements and other risks.

Our international business exposes us to geopolitical and economic factors, regulatory requirements, increasing competition and other risks associated with doing business in foreign countries. These risks differ from and potentially may be greater than those associated with our domestic business. In 2015, our sales to customers outside the U.S. (including foreign military sales through the U.S. government) accounted for 31% of our total net sales. Our exposure to such risks may increase if our international business continues to grow as we anticipate.

Our international business is sensitive to changes in the priorities and budgets of international customers, which may be driven by changes in threat environments, geopolitical uncertainties, volatility in worldwide economic conditions, and various regional and local economic and political factors, including volatility in energy prices, changes in U.S. foreign policy, and other risks and uncertainties. Our international sales are subject to U.S. laws, regulations and policies, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and other anti-corruption and export laws and regulations. We maintain policies and controls to comply with such laws and regulations and exercise oversight of such compliance. However, any failure by us or others working on our behalf to comply with these laws and resolutions could result in criminal, civil or administrative penalties, including fines, suspension or debarment from government contracts or suspension of our ability to export our products. In addition, due to the nature of our products, we must first obtain licenses and authorizations from various U.S. government agencies before we are permitted to sell our products outside of the U.S. We can give no assurance that we will continue to be successful in obtaining or maintaining the necessary licenses or authorizations or that certain sales will not be prevented or delayed. Any significant impairment of our ability to sell products outside of the U.S. could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Table of Contents

Our international sales are also subject to local government laws, regulations, and procurement policies and practices which may differ from U.S. government regulations. These include regulations relating to export-import control, technology transfer, investments, exchange controls and repatriation of earnings. Furthermore, our international sales contracts may be subject to non-U.S. contract laws and regulations and include contractual terms that differ from those of similar contracts in the U.S. or terms that may be interpreted differently by foreign courts. These contracts may also be subject to termination at the customer's convenience or for default based on performance, and may be subject to funding risks. In addition, the timing of orders, customer negotiations, governmental approvals and notifications from our international customers can be less predictable than from our domestic customers, and this may lead to variations in international bookings and sales each year. We must also manage a certain degree of exposure to the risk of currency fluctuations.

Our international business faces substantial competition from both U.S. companies and foreign companies. In some instances, foreign companies may receive loans, marketing subsidies and other assistance from their governments that may not be available to U.S. companies. In addition, foreign companies may be subject to fewer restrictions on technology transfer than U.S. companies.

Our international contracts may include industrial cooperation agreements requiring specific local purchases, manufacturing agreements or financial support obligations, known as offset obligations, and provide for penalties if we fail to meet such requirements. Approvals of offset thresholds and requirements may be subjective and time-consuming and may delay contract awards, and may, in certain countries, require the creation of a joint venture with a local company, which may control the venture. This could result in liability for violations of law for actions taken by these entities, such as laws related to anti-corruption, import and export, or local laws which may differ from U.S. laws and requirements. Such offset obligations are generally multi-year arrangements and may provide for penalties in the event we fail to perform in accordance with the offset requirements. We also are exposed to risks associated with using third-party foreign representatives and consultants for international sales, and teaming with international subcontractors, partners and suppliers in connection with international programs. As a result of these factors, we could experience financial penalties and award and funding delays on international programs, and could incur losses on such programs which could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Our business could be negatively impacted by cyber attacks and other security breaches and other disruptions.

As part of our business, we face certain security threats, including threats to our information technology infrastructure, attempts to gain access to our proprietary, sensitive or classified information, threats to physical security, including our facilities and personnel, and threats from terrorism or similar acts. We also face the potential for business disruptions associated with natural disasters. Cybersecurity threats in particular are persistent, evolve quickly and include, but are not limited to, computer viruses, attempts to access information, denial of service attacks and other electronic security breaches. Our information technology networks and related systems are critical to the operation of our business and essential to our ability to successfully perform day-to-day operations. We have in the past and will in the future continue to be the subject of cybersecurity threats. In addition, our customers, suppliers, subcontractors and other third parties with whom we do business generally face similar security threats, and in some cases we must rely on the safeguards put in place by these parties to protect against security threats. We believe we have implemented appropriate measures and controls and have invested in significant resources to appropriately identify and monitor these threats and mitigate potential risks, including risks involving our customers and suppliers. However, there can be no assurance that any such actions will be sufficient to prevent cybersecurity breaches, disruptions to mission critical systems, the unauthorized release of sensitive information or corruption of data, or harm to facilities or personnel.

In addition, as a provider of products and services to government and commercial customers, including through Forcepoint, our products and services may be the targets of cyber attacks that attempt to sabotage or otherwise disable them, or our cybersecurity and other products and services ultimately may not be able to effectively detect, prevent, or protect against or otherwise mitigate losses from all cyber attacks.

The impact of these security threats and other disruptions, including cyber attacks and other security breaches, is difficult to predict. Furthermore, our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all related costs. These threats and other events could disrupt our operations, or the operations of our customers, suppliers, subcontractors and other third parties, could require significant management attention and resources, could result in the loss of business, regulatory actions and potential liability, and could negatively impact our reputation among our customers and the public, any one of which could have a negative impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Table of Contents

We depend on the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel, and our failure to attract and retain such personnel could seriously harm our business.

Due to the specialized nature of our business, our future performance is highly dependent upon the continued services of our key engineering personnel and executive officers, the development of additional management personnel and the hiring of new qualified engineering, manufacturing, marketing, sales and management personnel for our operations. In addition, certain personnel may be required to receive security clearance and substantial training in order to work on certain programs or perform certain tasks. Competition for personnel is intense and we may not be successful in attracting or retaining qualified personnel. Furthermore, a significant percentage of our current workforce is nearing retirement. To the extent that we lose experienced personnel, it is critical that we develop other employees, hire new qualified personnel, and successfully manage the transfer of critical knowledge. The loss of key employees, our inability to attract new qualified employees or adequately train employees, or the delay in hiring key personnel could seriously harm our business.

Our business could be adversely affected by a negative audit or investigatory finding by the U.S. government.

As a government contractor, we are subject to audits and investigations by U.S. government agencies including the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the Inspectors General of the DoD and other departments and agencies, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and Congressional Committees. From time to time, these and other agencies investigate or conduct audits to determine whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with applicable requirements. The DCAA and DCMA also review the adequacy of, and our compliance with, our internal control systems and policies, including our accounting, purchasing, property, estimating, earned value management and material management accounting systems. Our final allowable incurred costs for each year are subject to audit and have from time to time resulted in disputes between us and the U.S. government. The DoJ has, from time to time, convened grand juries to investigate possible irregularities in our costs. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed or must be refunded if already reimbursed. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.

We use estimates in accounting for many of our programs, and changes in our estimates could adversely affect our future financial results.

Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, including risks associated with customer-directed delays and reductions in scheduled deliveries, unfavorable resolutions of claims and contractual matters, management's judgments associated with estimating contract revenues and costs, and assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenues and cost at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For example, we must make assumptions regarding the length of time to complete a contract because costs also include expected increases in wages and prices for materials; consider whether the intent of entering into multiple contracts was effectively to enter into a single project in order to determine whether such contracts should be combined or segmented; consider incentives or penalties related to performance on contracts in estimating sales and profit rates, and record them when there is sufficient information for us to assess anticipated performance; and use estimates of award fees in estimating sales and profit rates based on actual and anticipated awards. Because of the significance of management's judgments and estimation processes described above, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances or estimates may adversely affect our future results of operations and financial condition.

For a detailed discussion of how our financial statements can be affected by contract accounting policies, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Significant changes in key estimates and assumptions, such as discount rates and assumed long-term return on plan assets (ROA), as well as our actual investment returns on our pension plan assets and other actuarial factors, could affect our earnings, equity and pension contributions in future periods.

We must determine our pension and other postretirement benefit (PRB) plans' expense or income which involves significant judgment, particularly with respect to our discount rate, long-term ROA and other actuarial assumptions. If our assumptions change significantly due to changes in economic, legislative, and/or demographic experience or circumstances, our pension and PRB plans' expense and funded status, and our cash contributions to such plans, could negatively change which would

Table of Contents

negatively impact our results of operations. In addition, differences between our actual investment returns and our long-term ROA assumption would result in a change to our pension and PRB plans' expense and funded status and our required contributions to the plans. They may also be impacted by changes in regulatory, accounting and other requirements applicable to pensions.

For a detailed discussion of how our financial statements can be affected by pension and PRB plan accounting policies, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

If we fail to manage our acquisitions, investments, divestitures, joint ventures and other transactions successfully, these activities could adversely affect our future financial results.

In pursuing our business strategies, we continually review, evaluate and consider potential investments, acquisitions, divestitures, and joint venture, teaming and other collaborative arrangements. We undertake to identify opportunities that will complement our existing products and services or customer base, as well as expand our offerings and market reach into new areas that naturally extend from our core capabilities. In evaluating such transactions, we are required to make difficult judgments regarding the value of business opportunities, technologies and other assets, and the risks and cost of potential liabilities. Furthermore, these transactions involve certain other risks and uncertainties, including the risks involved with entering new markets, the difficulty in integrating newly-acquired businesses and managing or monitoring other collaborative business arrangements, challenges and failures in achieving strategic objectives and other expected benefits which may result in certain liabilities to us for guarantees and other commitments, unidentified issues not discovered in Raytheon’s due diligence, the diversion of our attention and resources from our operations and other initiatives, the potential impairment of acquired assets, the performance of underlying products, capabilities or technologies, and the potential loss of key employees and customers of acquired businesses.

In May 2015, we created Raytheon|Websense, a new cybersecurity joint venture company (with Vista Equity Partners), through a series of transactions by which we acquired Websense, Inc. (Websense) from Vista Equity Partners and combined it with Raytheon Cyber Products (RCP), formerly part of our Intelligence, Information and Services (IIS) segment, and then sold a minority interest in the combined company to Vista Equity Partners. Raytheon|Websense was later renamed Forcepoint. Forcepoint offers products and services worldwide to enterprise customers, small- and medium-sized businesses, public sector entities and internet service providers primarily through a network of distributors and value-added resellers. Raytheon owns 80.3% of the joint venture and Vista Equity Partners owns 19.7%. The joint venture agreement provides Vista Equity Partners with certain rights to exit the joint venture, including the right to require Raytheon to purchase all of Vista Equity Partners’ interest in Forcepoint and the right to require Forcepoint to pursue an initial public offering, as well as certain other rights with respect to the management of Forcepoint's business. Therefore, in addition to the other risks described above, the exercise of any such rights by Vista Equity Partners could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity, or the management of our business as a whole. For a more detailed discussion regarding Forcepoint, see “Forcepoint” beginning on page 6 within Item 1 of this Form 10-K.

Goodwill and other intangible assets represent a significant portion of our assets, and any impairment of these assets could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

At December 31, 2015, we had goodwill and other intangible assets of approximately $15.7 billion, net of accumulated amortization, which represented approximately 54% of our total assets. Our goodwill is subject to an impairment test on an annual basis and is also tested whenever events and circumstances indicate that goodwill may be impaired. Any excess goodwill resulting from the impairment test must be written off in the period of determination. Intangible assets (other than goodwill) are generally amortized over the useful life of such assets. In addition, from time to time, we may acquire or make an investment in a business which will require us to record goodwill and intangible assets based on the purchase price and the value of the acquired assets. We may subsequently experience unforeseen events that could adversely affect the value of our goodwill or intangible assets and trigger an evaluation of the recoverability of the recorded goodwill and intangible assets. Future determinations of significant impairments of goodwill or intangible assets as a result of an impairment test or any accelerated amortization of other intangible assets could have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

For a detailed discussion of how our financial statements can be affected by goodwill accounting policies, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” within Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

The outcome of litigation in which we have been named, or may in the future be named, as a defendant is unpredictable, and an adverse decision in any such matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

We are the defendant in a number of litigation matters and are subject to various other claims, demands and investigations. In addition, we may be subject to future litigation matters, claims, demands and investigations. These matters may divert financial and management resources that would otherwise be used to benefit our operations. No assurances can be given that the results of these matters will be favorable to us. An adverse resolution or outcome of any of these lawsuits, claims, demands or investigations could have a negative impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Some of our workforce is represented by labor unions, so our business could be harmed in the event of a prolonged work stoppage.

Approximately 4,000 of our employees are unionized, which represents approximately 7% of our employee base at December 31, 2015. As a result, we may experience work stoppages, which could adversely affect our business. We cannot predict how stable our union relationships will be or whether we will be able to successfully negotiate successor agreements without impacting our financial condition. In addition, the presence of unions may limit our flexibility in dealing with our workforce. Work stoppages could negatively impact our ability to manufacture our products on a timely basis, which could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

We may be unable to adequately protect our intellectual property rights, which could affect our ability to compete.

We own many U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications, and have rights in unpatented know-how, data, software, trademarks and copyrights. The U.S. government has licenses under certain of our patents and certain other intellectual property that are developed or used in performance of government contracts, and it may use or authorize others (including our competitors) to use such patents and intellectual property for government and other purposes. The U.S. government may challenge the sufficiency of intellectual property rights we have granted in U.S. government contracts and attempt to obtain greater rights. There can be no assurance that any of our patents and other intellectual property will not be challenged, invalidated, misappropriated or circumvented by third parties. In some instances, we have augmented our technology base by licensing the proprietary intellectual property of others. In the future, we may not be able to obtain necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms. We enter into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our employees and enter into non-disclosure agreements with our suppliers and appropriate customers so as to limit access to and prevent disclosure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information. These measures may not suffice to deter misappropriation or third-party development of similar technologies. Moreover, the laws concerning intellectual property vary among nations and the protection provided to our intellectual property by the laws and courts of foreign nations may not be as advantageous to us as the remedies available under U.S. law.

Our operations expose us to the risk of material environmental liabilities.

We use hazardous substances and generate hazardous wastes in our manufacturing operations. As a result, we are subject to potentially material liabilities related to personal injuries or property damage that may be caused by hazardous substance releases and exposures. For example, we are investigating and remediating contamination related to past practices at a number of properties and, in some cases, have in the past been named as a defendant in related “toxic tort” claims.

We are also subject to laws and regulations that: (i) impose requirements for the proper management, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; (ii) restrict air and water emissions from our operations (including U.S. government-owned facilities we manage); and (iii) require maintenance of a safe workplace. These laws and regulations can lead to substantial fines and criminal sanctions for violations, and may require the installation of costly equipment or operational changes to limit pollution emissions, decrease the likelihood of accidental hazardous substance releases and/or reduce the risks of injury to people in our workplaces.

If we were to be convicted of a criminal violation of certain U.S. federal environmental statutes, including the Federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the facility or facilities involved in the violation would be placed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the “Excluded Parties List” maintained by the Government Services Administration. The listing

Table of Contents

would continue until the EPA concluded that the cause of the violation had been cured. Listed facilities cannot be used in performing any U.S. government contract awarded during any period of listing by the EPA.

We incur, and expect to continue to incur, capital and operating costs to comply with these laws and regulations. In addition, new laws and regulations, changes in the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws and regulations, the discovery of previously unknown contamination, or the imposition of new clean-up standards could require us to incur costs in the future that would have a negative effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We face certain significant risk exposures and potential liabilities that may not be adequately covered by indemnity or insurance.

A significant portion of our business relates to designing, developing and manufacturing advanced defense and technology systems and products. New technologies may be untested or unproven. In addition, we may incur significant liabilities that are unique to our products and services, including but not limited to missile systems, command and control systems, border security systems, air traffic management systems, and cybersecurity products and services. In some, but not all, circumstances, we may be entitled to indemnification from our customers through contractual provisions, and obtain limitations of liability and additional defenses from the qualification of our products and services by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the SAFETY Act provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, or otherwise. The amount of the insurance coverage we maintain or indemnification to which we may be contractually or otherwise entitled may not be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities. Accordingly, we may be forced to bear substantial costs resulting from risks and uncertainties of our business which would negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

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

We are subject to income taxes in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our worldwide provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of our business, there are transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. Furthermore, changes in domestic or foreign income tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation, could result in higher or lower income tax rates assessed or changes in the taxability of certain sales or the deductibility of certain expenses, thereby affecting our income tax expense and profitability. In addition, we are regularly under audit by tax authorities. The final determination of tax audits and any related litigation could be materially different from our historical income tax provisions and accruals. Additionally, changes in the geographic mix of our sales could impact our tax liabilities and affect our income tax expense and profitability.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

We and our subsidiaries operate in a number of plants, laboratories, warehouses and office facilities in the U.S. and abroad.

As of December 31, 2015 we owned, leased and/or utilized (through operating agreements) approximately 27.5 million square feet of floor space for manufacturing, engineering, research, administration, sales and warehousing, approximately 93% of which was located in the U.S. Of such total, approximately 45% was owned (or held under a long-term ground lease with ownership of the improvements), approximately 49% was leased, and approximately 6% was Government owned. In addition to the 27.5 million square feet of floor space described above, approximately 142,241 square feet of space was leased or subleased by us to unrelated third parties.

There are no major encumbrances on any of our facilities other than financing arrangements, which in the aggregate are not material. In the opinion of management, our properties have been well maintained and are suitable and adequate for us to operate at present levels, and the productive capacity and extent of utilization of the facilities are appropriate for our existing real estate requirements.

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2015, our business segments had major operations at the following locations:


–	Integrated Defense Systems—Huntsville, AL; Fullerton, CA; San Diego, CA; Andover, MA; Billerica, MA; Marlboro, MA; Tewksbury, MA; Woburn, MA; Maple Lawn, MD; Portsmouth, RI; Keyport, WA; Waterloo, Canada; and Kiel, Germany.


–	Intelligence, Information and Services—Aurora, CO; Orlando, FL; Indianapolis, IN; Burlington, MA; Riverdale, MD; Troy, MI; Omaha, NE; State College, PA; Garland, TX; Richardson, TX; Dulles, VA; Norfolk, VA; and Springfield, VA.


–	Missile Systems—Huntsville, AL; East Camden, AR; Tucson, AZ; Rancho Cucamonga, CA; Louisville, KY; Albuquerque, NM; Farmington, NM; Dallas, TX; Richardson, TX; Midland, Canada; Harlow, United Kingdom; Glenrothes, Scotland.


–	Space and Airborne Systems—El Segundo, CA; Goleta, CA; Sunnyvale, CA; Largo, FL; Cambridge, MA; Forest, MS; Dallas, TX; and McKinney, TX.


–	Forcepoint—Los Gatos, CA; San Diego, CA; Austin, TX; Salt Lake City, UT; Herndon, VA; Sydney, Australia; Beijing, China; Reading, England; Chennai, India; Dublin, Ireland; and Ra'anana, Israel.


–	Corporate and Other—Billerica, MA; Waltham, MA; Garland, TX; Greenville, TX; Plano, TX; Arlington, VA; and Dulles, VA.

A summary of the space owned, leased and/or utilized by us as of December 31, 2015, by business segment is as follows:



(In square feet)	Leased	Owned⁽¹⁾	Government owned⁽²⁾	Total⁽³⁾
Integrated Defense Systems	1,759,650	3,990,022	130,066	5,879,738
Intelligence, Information and Services	5,065,213	1,030,044	208,125	6,303,382
Missile Systems	2,401,644	2,760,841	1,225,491	6,387,976
Space and Airborne Systems	3,264,286	4,221,647	—	7,485,933
Forcepoint	482,801	—	—	482,801
Corporate and Other⁽⁴⁾	595,974	333,575	626	930,175
Total square feet	13,569,568	12,336,129	1,564,308	27,470,005


(1)	Ownership may include either fee ownership of land and improvements or a long-term ground lease with ownership of improvements.


(2)	“Government owned” means space owned by the U.S. or a foreign government utilized by us pursuant to an operating agreement with the U.S. or a foreign government (GOCO).


(3)	Includes approximately 232,614 square feet of vacant space, but excludes approximately 142,241 square feet of space leased or subleased to unrelated third parties.


(4)	Includes business development, discontinued operations and Raytheon International, Inc.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We primarily engage in providing products and services under contracts with the U.S. government and, to a lesser degree, under direct foreign sales contracts, some of which the U.S. government funds. As a U.S. government contractor, we are subject to many levels of audit and investigation by the U.S. government relating to our contract performance and compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Agencies that oversee contract performance include: the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA); the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); the Inspectors General of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and other departments and agencies; the Government Accountability Office; the Department of Justice (DoJ); and Congressional Committees. From time to time, these and other agencies investigate or conduct audits to determine whether our operations are being conducted in accordance with applicable requirements. Such investigations and audits could result in administrative, civil or criminal liabilities, including repayments, fines or penalties being imposed upon us, the suspension of government export licenses or the suspension or debarment from future U.S. government contracting. U.S. government investigations often take years to complete and many result in no adverse action against us. Our final allowable incurred costs for each year are also subject to audit and have from time to time resulted in disputes between us and the U.S. government, with litigation resulting at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) or the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or their related courts of appeals. In addition, the DoJ has, from time to time, convened grand juries to investigate possible irregularities by us. We also provide products and services to customers outside of the U.S., and those sales are subject to local government laws, regulations, and procurement policies and practices. Our compliance with such local government regulations or any applicable U.S. government regulations (e.g., the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)) may also be investigated or audited. Other than as specifically disclosed in this Form 10-K, we do not expect these audits, investigations or disputes to have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity, either individually or in the aggregate.

Table of Contents

In addition, various other claims and legal proceedings generally incidental to the normal course of business are pending or threatened against us. We do not expect these proceedings to result in any additional liability that would materially affect our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

Our executive officers are listed below. Each executive officer was elected by our Board of Directors to serve for a term of one year and until his or her successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier removal, resignation or death.

Frank R. Jimenez

Mr. Jimenez has served as Vice President and General Counsel since January 2015 and Corporate Secretary since April 2015. Prior to joining Raytheon, Mr. Jimenez served as General Counsel, Secretary and Managing Director, Corporate Affairs of Bunge Limited, a leading global agribusiness and food company, from July 2012 to January 2015. From 2011 to 2012, he served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at Xylem Inc., a global water technology company spun off from ITT Corporation in 2011. From 2009 to 2011, he served as Vice President and General Counsel of ITT Corporation. From 2006 to 2009, he served as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Navy. He has held a variety of other positions in government, including Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel) for the U.S. Department of Defense and Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as Deputy Chief of Staff and Acting General Counsel to the Governor of Florida. Age 51.

Thomas A. Kennedy

Dr. Kennedy has served as Chairman of the Board since October 2014, Chief Executive Officer since April 2014 and a Director since January 2014. From April 2013 to March 2014, he served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Raytheon Company. From June 2010 to March 2013, he served as Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of the Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) business unit. From July 2007 to June 2010, he was Vice President of the Tactical Airborne Systems product line within the Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) business unit, and from May 2003 to July 2007, he was Vice President of the Mission System Integration product line within SAS. Dr. Kennedy joined Raytheon in 1983 and has held positions of increasing responsibility as a new business leader and program manager for several radar and electronic warfare systems development programs. Age 60.

Wesley D. Kremer

Mr. Kremer has served as President of the Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) business unit since July 2015 and Vice President of Raytheon Company since October 2015. From July 2011 to July 2015, he was Vice President of the Air and Missile Defense Systems product line within the Missile Systems (MS) business unit. From May 2010 to July 2011, Mr. Kremer was Director of the Standard Missile-3 program, and from June 2008 to May 2010, he was Director of Systems Design and Performance Engineering within MS. From December 2006 to June 2008, he was General Manager of the Advanced Products Center within the Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) business unit. Prior to joining Raytheon in 2003, Mr. Kremer served 11 years in the U.S. Air Force as a weapon systems officer. Age 50.

Taylor W. Lawrence

Dr. Lawrence has served as Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of the Missiles Systems (MS) business unit since July 2008. Dr. Lawrence joined Raytheon in April 2006 and until July 2008, he served as Vice President, Engineering, Technology and Mission Assurance. From August 2001 to April 2006, Dr. Lawrence was sector vice president and general manager, C4ISR & Space Sensors Division for Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems. From March 1999 to August 2001, Dr. Lawrence was vice president, Products and Technology for Northrop Grumman’s Systems Development & Technology Division. Before joining Northrop Grumman, Dr. Lawrence served as the staff director for the Select Committee on Intelligence for the U.S. Senate and, previously, as deputy director, Information Systems Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Age 52.

Randa G. Newsome

Ms. Newsome has served as Vice President of Human Resources and Global Security since January 2015. From April 2013 to December 2014, she was Vice President of Human Resources and Security for Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems

Table of Contents

(IDS) business unit. From December 2008 to April 2013, she was Vice President of Human Resources and Security for the former Technical Services business unit. From May 2004 to December 2008, Ms. Newsome was Director of Organization Performance and Talent Management for the former Intelligence and Information Systems business unit. Ms. Newsome joined Raytheon in 2001 as a human resources manager for the former Network Centric Systems business unit, after holding various assignments of increasing responsibility at Lockheed Martin Corporation. Age 50.

Anthony F. O'Brien

Mr. O’Brien has served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since March 2015. From March 2008 to March 2015, he was Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) business unit. Mr. O’Brien joined Raytheon in 1986 and has held numerous finance positions of increasing responsibility with the Company over the course of his 29-year career, including Vice President of Finance and the senior finance executive responsible for Raytheon Airline Aviation Services and Raytheon’s International Landed Companies, and Chief Financial Officer for Raytheon Aircraft Company. Age 51.

Rebecca R. Rhoads

Ms. Rhoads has served as Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of Global Business Services (GBS) since December 2013. From April 2001 to December 2013, she was a Vice President and the Chief Information Officer for Raytheon Company. From 1999 to April 2001, she was the Vice President of Information Technology for Raytheon’s former Electronics Systems business unit. Ms. Rhoads began her career with General Dynamics as an electrical engineer in 1979, and worked in Engineering and Operations holding various assignments of increasing responsibility at General Dynamics, Hughes and Raytheon. Age 58.

David C. Wajsgras

Mr. Wajsgras has served as Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of the Intelligence, Information and Services (IIS) business unit since March 2015. From March 2006 to March 2015, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Raytheon Company. From August 2005 to March 2006, he was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Lear Corporation, an automotive interior systems and components supplier. From January 2002 to August 2005, he served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Lear. Mr. Wajsgras joined Lear in September 1999 as Vice President and Controller. Age 56.

Michael J. Wood

Mr. Wood has served as Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer since October 2006. Prior to joining Raytheon, Mr. Wood held positions of increasing responsibility over a 16-year career at KPMG LLP, an accounting firm, including as an Audit Partner serving various aerospace and defense clients. Age 47.

Richard R. Yuse

Mr. Yuse has served as Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of the Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) business unit since March 2010. From May 2007 to March 2010, he was President of the former Technical Services (TS) business unit. From March 2007 to May 2007, Mr. Yuse was Vice President and Deputy General Manager of TS, and from January 2006 to March 2007, he served as Vice President of the Integrated Air Defense product line of the Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) business unit. Mr. Yuse joined Raytheon in 1976 and has held positions of increasing responsibility on a variety of programs ranging from system architecture and design to flight test director and program manager. Age 64.

Table of Contents

PART II

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

At February 8, 2016, there were 24,208 record holders of our common stock. Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “RTN”. For information concerning stock prices and dividends paid during the past two years, see "Note 17: Quarterly Operating Results (Unaudited)" within Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides information about our equity compensation plans that authorize the issuance of shares of our common stock. This information is provided as of December 31, 2015.



Plan Category	(A) Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights⁽¹⁾	(B) Weighted average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights⁽²⁾		(C) Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column A)
Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders	2,118,143		$—	6,941,444
Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders	—	—		—
Total	2,118,143		$—	6,941,444

(1)

This amount includes 1,595,198 shares, which is the aggregate of the actual number of shares that will be issued pursuant to the 2013 Long-term Performance Plan (LTPP) awards and the maximum number of shares that may be issued upon settlement of outstanding 2014 and 2015 LTPP awards, including estimated dividend equivalent amounts. The shares to be issued pursuant to the 2013, 2014 and 2015 LTPP awards will be issued under the Raytheon 2010 Stock Plan (2010 Stock Plan). The material terms of the 2013, 2014 and 2015 LTPP awards are described in more detail in "Note 13: Stock-based Compensation Plans" within Item 8 of this Form 10-K. These awards, which are granted as restricted stock units (RSUs), may be settled in cash or in stock at the discretion of the Management Development and Compensation Committee.

This amount also includes 522,945 shares that may be issued upon settlement of RSUs, generally issued to retirement-eligible and non-U.S. employees. The shares to be issued in settlement of the RSUs will be issued under the 2010 Stock Plan. The awards of RSUs generally vest one-third per year on the second, third and fourth anniversaries of the date of grant.


(2)	Since RSU awards do not have an exercise price, the weighted-average exercise price does not take into account the 2013, 2014 and 2015 LTPP awards and RSUs.

Stock Performance Graph

The following chart compares the total return on a cumulative basis of $100 invested in our common stock on December 31, 2010 to the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index and the S&P Aerospace & Defense Index.

Total Return To Stockholders (Includes reinvestment of dividends)



	Annual Return Percentage Years Ending
Company/Index	12/31/2011	12/31/2012	12/31/2013	12/31/2014	12/31/2015
Raytheon Common Stock	9.14	23.29	62.33	21.50	18.02
S&P 500 Index	2.11	16.00	32.39	13.69	1.38
S&P Aerospace & Defense Index	5.28	14.56	54.92	11.43	5.43

Table of Contents



	Indexed Returns Years Ending
Company/Index	Base Period 12/31/2010	12/31/2011	12/31/2012	12/31/2013	12/31/2014	12/31/2015
Raytheon Common Stock	100	109.14	134.56	218.42	265.38	313.19
S&P 500 Index	100	102.11	118.45	156.82	178.29	180.75
S&P Aerospace & Defense Index	100	105.28	120.61	186.85	208.21	219.52

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities



Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased ⁽¹⁾	Average Price Paid per Share		Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans	Approximate Dollar Value (in Billions) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans ⁽²⁾
October (September 28, 2015–October 25, 2015)	1,672		$108.34	—	$	0.8
November (October 26, 2015–November 22, 2015)	134,645	117.24		133,888	2.8
December (November 23, 2015–December 31, 2015)	1,861,014	125.90		1,861,004	2.5
Total	1,997,331		$125.30	1,994,892


(1)	Includes shares purchased related to activity under our stock plans. Such activity during the fourth quarter of 2015 includes the surrender by employees of 2,439 shares to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted stock issued to employees.


(2)	In November 2013, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $2.0 billion of our outstanding common stock. Additionally, in November 2015, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to an additional $2.0 billion of our outstanding common stock.

Table of Contents

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with the information contained in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, which are incorporated herein by reference, in order to understand the factors that may affect the comparability of the financial data presented below.

FIVE-YEAR STATISTICAL SUMMARY



(In millions, except per share amounts and total employees)	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Results of Operations
Total net sales	$	23,247		$	22,826		$	23,706		$	24,414		$	24,791
Operating income	3,013			3,179			2,938			2,989			2,830
Interest expense, net	222			203			198			192			158
Income from continuing operations	2,054			2,193			1,949			1,901			1,878
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax	13			65			64			(1		)	18
Net income	2,067			2,258			2,013			1,900			1,896
Net income attributable to Raytheon Company	2,074			2,244			1,996			1,888			1,866
Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company common stockholders	$	6.75		$	6.97		$	5.96		$	5.65		$	5.22
Diluted earnings per share attributable to Raytheon Company common stockholders	$	6.80		$	7.18		$	6.16		$	5.65		$	5.28
Average diluted shares outstanding	305.2			312.6			324.2			334.2			353.6
Financial Position at Year-End
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,328		$	3,222		$	3,296		$	3,188		$	4,000
Short-term investments	872			1,497			1,001			856			—
Total current assets⁽¹⁾	9,812			10,279			9,792			9,150			9,088
Property, plant and equipment, net	2,005			1,935			1,937			1,986			2,006
Total assets⁽¹⁾	29,281			27,716			25,964			26,685			25,853
Total current liabilities⁽¹⁾	6,126			5,752			5,704			5,902			6,130
Long-term liabilities (excluding debt)⁽¹⁾	7,140			6,918			4,329			7,862			6,778
Long-term debt⁽²⁾	5,330			5,325			4,734			4,731			4,605
Total equity	10,330			9,721			11,197			8,190			8,340
Cash Flow and Other Information
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities from continuing operations	$	2,346		$	2,064		$	2,382		$	1,951		$	2,102
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities from continuing operations	(1,744		)	(1,322		)	(473		)	(1,523		)	(1,083		)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	(1,509		)	(936		)	(1,797		)	(1,246		)	(694		)
Bookings	25,227			24,052			22,132			26,504			26,555
Total backlog	34,669			33,571			33,685			36,181			35,312
Dividends declared per share	$	2.68		$	2.42		$	2.20		$	2.00		$	1.72
Total employees from continuing operations	61,000			61,000			63,000			67,800			71,000

(1)

Amounts adjusted to reflect the reclassification of current deferred tax assets and liabilities to noncurrent in accordance with ASU 2015-17. We reclassified $165 million and $81 million of net deferred tax liabilities from current to noncurrent at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, and $96 million and $221 million of deferred tax assets from current to noncurrent at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. See "Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies" within Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.


(2)	Amounts adjusted to reflect the reclassification of debt issuance costs of $5 million at December 31, 2014 in accordance with ASU 2015-03. See "Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies" within Item 8 of this Form 10-K for additional information.

Table of Contents

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



Topic	Page
Overview	29
Financial Summary	32
Critical Accounting Estimates	32
Accounting Standards	40
Consolidated Results of Operations	41
Segment Results	48
Financial Condition and Liquidity	65
Capital Resources	68
Contractual Obligations	69
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements	69
Commitments and Contingencies	70

OVERVIEW

Introduction

Raytheon Company develops technologically advanced and integrated products, services and solutions in our core markets: sensing; effects; command, control, communications, computers, cyber and intelligence (C5I™); mission support; and cybersecurity. We serve both domestic and international customers, primarily as a prime contractor or subcontractor on a broad portfolio of defense and related programs for government customers.

The amounts, discussion and presentation of our business segments, including Corporate and eliminations for intersegment activity, set forth in this Form 10-K, reflect the Forcepoint transaction. The Forcepoint results reflect RCP results for all periods and Websense results after the acquisition date of May 29, 2015. None of the changes impact our previously reported consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations or statements of cash flows.

In addition, effective January 1, 2016, we reorganized certain product areas of our IDS and IIS businesses to more efficiently leverage our capabilities, but because this change occurred after December 31, 2015, the amounts, discussion and presentation of our financial results for purposes of this Form 10-K do not reflect this change. Rather, our structure as of December 31, 2015 is reflected.

In this section, we discuss our business environment and how certain factors may affect our business, key elements of our strategy, and how our financial performance is assessed and measured by management.

Business Environment

Domestic Considerations

U.S. government sales, excluding foreign military sales, accounted for 68% of our total net sales in 2015. Our principal U.S. government customer is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).

Table of Contents

On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) into law. The BBA sets fiscal year (FY) 2016 and 2017 DoD spending caps that exceed recent DoD budget funding levels. These spending caps are recognized by both the Administration and Congress and are therefore expected to lead to a stable budget process for those two years. In addition, while the spending cap increase does not meet the DoD's original FY 2016 base budget funding request or its planned FY 2017 funding level, it should provide for modest growth in the DoD's modernization budgets for FY 2016 and FY 2017. Modernization funding, which consists of procurement and research and development, is of particular importance to defense contractors. Despite the expected stability in FY 2016 and 2017, defense budget funding levels, which are subject to budget and appropriation decisions and processes, are difficult to predict beyond the near-term.

In addition to the DoD budget considerations discussed above, future domestic defense spending levels are impacted by a number of additional factors, including external threats to our national security, funding for on-going operations overseas, the priorities of the Administration and the Congress, overall health of the U.S. and world economies, and the state of governmental finances. However, we also continue to expect the DoD to continue to prioritize and protect the key capabilities required to execute its strategy, including Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), cybersecurity, missile defense, electronic warfare, undersea warfare, unmanned systems, special operations forces and interoperability with allied forces. We believe those priorities are well aligned with our product offerings, technologies, services and capabilities.

We currently are involved in over 15,000 contracts, with no single contract accounting for more than 5% of our total net sales in 2015. Although we believe our diverse portfolio of programs and capabilities is well suited to a changing defense environment, we face numerous challenges and risks, as discussed above. For more information on the risks and uncertainties that could impact the U.S. government's demand for our products and services, see Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K.

International Considerations

In 2015, our sales to customers outside of the U.S. accounted for 31% of our total net sales (including foreign military sales through the U.S. government). Internationally, the growing threat of additional terrorist activity, cyber threats, emerging nuclear states, long-range missiles and conventional military threats have led to an increase in demand for defense systems and services and other security solutions. In North Asia, both short- and long-term regional security concerns are increasing demand for air and missile defense, air/naval modernization, and maritime security. In the Middle East and North Africa, threats from state and non-state actors are increasing demand for air and missile defense, air/land/naval force modernization, precision engagement, ISR, maritime and border security, and cybersecurity solutions. Given such threat environments, we expect our customers to continue to prioritize security investments even if their budgets are impacted by volatile short-term energy prices. In Europe, while economic challenges continue to restrain and even reduce the defense budgets of certain European nations, others have made commitments to increase spending in response to recent geopolitical events and conflicts in Eastern Europe and the resulting uncertainty and security threat environment. Based on the foregoing, we expect that European nations will continue to seek advanced air and missile defense capabilities. Overall, we believe many international defense budgets have the potential to grow and to do so at a faster rate than the U.S. defense budget. However, international demand is sensitive to changes in the priorities and budgets of international customers and geopolitical uncertainties, which may be driven by changes in threat environments, volatility in worldwide economic conditions, regional and local economic and political factors, U.S. foreign policy and other risks and uncertainties. For more information on the risks and uncertainties that could impact international demand for our products and services, see Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K.

Our Strategy

The following are the broad elements of our strategy:


–	Build upon our areas of strength within our key mission areas;


–	Focus additional resources on emerging opportunities within the DoD market;


–	Engage key countries as individual markets with multiple customers; and


–	Extend Raytheon's advanced cyber solutions beyond the U.S. government into international and commercial markets.

We believe that our broad mix of technologies, domain expertise and key capabilities, our cost-effective, best-value solutions and the alignment of these strengths with customer needs position us favorably to grow in our key mission areas of missile defense; electronic warfare; command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C5ISR); precision weapons; cybersecurity; and training. Domestically, customers are increasingly seeking cost-effective mission solutions. These solutions can take the form of new electronics or electronic upgrades, but draw on our market focus area capabilities, deep domain expertise and system architecture skills. We continue to explore opportunities to make these affordable solutions more readily available to our international customers, including through enhanced design for

Table of Contents

export and releasability. We also continue to make investments to support our strategy, including through acquisitions and research and development.

International Growth—Because of the breadth of our offerings, our systems integration capability, the value of our solutions and our strong legacy in the international marketplace, we believe that we are well positioned to continue to grow our international business. As discussed under “International Considerations,” we believe demand continues to grow for solutions in air and missile defense, precision engagement, naval systems integration, ISR, and cybersecurity. As a result we continue to enhance our focus on global growth through increased investment in our international business in existing and new international markets. Such investment provides additional resources and capabilities, both in-country and in the U.S., that strengthen the company’s position to pursue both existing and new opportunities. Although we believe our international business is well positioned to continue to grow, we recognize that we face substantial competition from both U.S. companies and other competitors in international markets, as well as the challenges of changing budget priorities, overall spending pressures and the timing of contract awards.



(In millions)	2015		2014		2013
International sales⁽¹⁾	$	7,150	$	6,541	$	6,446
International bookings	8,511		8,362		6,604


(1)	Includes foreign military sales through the U.S. government.

Cybersecurity—We continue to both enhance our capabilities in the cyber market and leverage the capabilities of the 16 cyber acquisitions made since 2007. In 2015, we successfully executed on our strategy to extend our significant cyber capabilities into the commercial markets by creating Forcepoint, a new commercial cybersecurity joint venture company (with Vista Equity Partners) that combines Websense and RCP, formerly part of our IIS business. Forcepoint is leveraging its unique combination of capabilities to deliver “defense-grade” cybersecurity solutions to commercial markets worldwide. For more information on the Forcepoint joint venture transaction, see Item 1 "Business," and “Note 5: Forcepoint Joint Venture” within Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

We also provide cyber capabilities to government customers, including the Intelligence Community, the DoD, other defense and civil global customers, as well as embed information assurance capabilities in our products and our information technology infrastructure. We believe the commercial and government cyber markets both represent strong growth markets for Raytheon. We expect to continue to seek opportunities to leverage our extensive cyber capabilities and to grow and scale our cyber businesses.

Focus on the Customer and Execution

Our customer focus continues to be a critical part of our strategy—underpinned by a focus on performance, relationships and solutions. Performance means being able to meet customer commitments, which is ensured through strong processes, metrics and oversight. We maintain a “process architecture” that spans our defense businesses and our broad programs and pursuits. It consists of enterprisewide processes and systems such as our Integrated Product Development System (IPDS), which assures consistency of evaluation and execution at each step in a program's life-cycle; Product Data Management (PDM), which is our business system software for engineering; Achieving Process Excellence (APEX), which is our SAP business system software for accounting, finance and program management; Process Re-Invention Integrating Systems for Manufacturing (PRISM), which is our SAP software for manufacturing operations; Advanced Company Estimating System (ACES), which is our cost proposal system; and Raytheon Enterprise Supplier Assessment (RESA) tool for Supply Chain Management. These processes and systems are linked to an array of front-end and back-end metrics. With this structure, we are able to track results and be alerted to potential issues through numerous oversight mechanisms, including operating reviews and annual operating plan reviews.

We are also continuing to build strong customer relationships by working with them as partners and including them on Raytheon Six Sigma^TM teams to jointly improve their programs and processes. We are increasingly focused on responding to our customers' changing requirements with rapid and effective solutions to real-world problems. In recognition of our customers' constraints and priorities, we also continue to drive various cost reductions across the Company by continuing to focus on enterprise collaboration and improving productivity and strong execution throughout our programs. We have worked to reduce costs across the Company and improve efficiencies in our production facilities, and we continue to increase value through Raytheon Six Sigma^TM, the implementation of lean processes, reduced cycle times and strategic supply chain initiatives, in addition to other initiatives.

Table of Contents

FINANCIAL SUMMARY

We use the following key financial performance measures to manage our business on a consolidated basis and by business segment, and to monitor and assess our results of operations:


–	Bookings—a forward-looking metric that measures the value of firm orders awarded to us during the year;


–	Net Sales—a growth metric that measures our revenue for the current year;


–	Operating Income—a measure of our profit from continuing operations for the year, before non-operating expenses, net and taxes; and


–	Operating Margin—a measure of our operating income as a percentage of total net sales.



(In millions, except for percentages)	2015			2014			2013
Bookings	$	25,227		$	24,052		$	22,132
Total backlog	34,669			33,571			33,685
Total net sales	23,247			22,826			23,706
Total operating income⁽¹⁾	3,013			3,179			2,938
Total operating margin	13.0		%	13.9		%	12.4		%
Operating cash flow from continuing operations	$	2,346		$	2,064		$	2,382


(1)	Includes FAS/CAS Adjustment, described below in Critical Accounting Estimates, of $185 million of income, $286 million of income and $249 million of expense in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Backlog represents the dollar value of firm orders for which work has not been performed. Backlog generally increases with bookings and generally converts into sales as we incur costs under the related contractual commitments. Therefore, we discuss changes in backlog, including any significant cancellations, for each of our segments, as we believe such discussion provides an understanding of the awarded but not executed portions of our contracts.

In addition, we maintain a strong focus on program execution and the prudent management of capital and investments in order to maximize operating income and cash. We pursue a capital deployment strategy that balances funding for growing our business, including capital expenditures, acquisitions and research and development; prudently managing our balance sheet, including debt repayments and pension contributions; and returning cash to our shareholders, including dividend payments and share repurchases.

We also focus on earnings per share (EPS) and measures to assess our cash generation and the efficiency and effectiveness of our use of capital, such as free cash flow (FCF) and return on invested capital (ROIC).

Considered together, we believe these metrics are strong indicators of our overall performance and our ability to create shareholder value. We feel these measures are balanced among long-term and short-term performance, efficiency and growth. We also use these and other performance metrics for executive compensation purposes.

A discussion of our results of operations and financial condition follows below in Consolidated Results of Operations; Segment Results; Financial Condition and Liquidity; and Capital Resources.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

Our consolidated financial statements are based on the application of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which require us to make estimates and assumptions about future events that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. Future events and their effects cannot be determined with certainty; therefore, the determination of estimates requires the exercise of judgment. Actual results could differ from those estimates, and any such differences may be material to our consolidated financial statements. We believe the estimates set forth below may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity in their application than our other accounting estimates and represent the critical accounting estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements. We believe our judgments related to these accounting estimates are appropriate. However, if different assumptions or conditions were to prevail, the results could be materially different from the amounts recorded.

Table of Contents

Revenue Recognition

We determine the appropriate revenue recognition method by analyzing the type, terms and conditions of each contract or arrangement entered into with our customers. The significant estimates we make in recognizing revenue for the types of revenue-generating activities in which we are involved are described below. We classify contract revenues as product or service according to the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts unless the contract can clearly be split between product and service. We define service revenue as revenue from activities that are not associated with the design, development or production of tangible assets, the delivery of software code or a specific capability. Our service revenue is primarily related to our IIS business segment.

Percentage-of-Completion Accounting—We use the percentage-of-completion accounting method to account for our long-term contracts associated with the design, development, manufacture, or modification of complex aerospace or electronic equipment and related services, such as certain cost-plus service contracts. Under this method, revenue is recognized based on the extent of progress toward completion of the long-term contract. Our analysis of these contracts also contemplates whether contracts should be combined or segmented in accordance with the applicable criteria under U.S. GAAP. We combine closely related contracts when all the applicable criteria under U.S. GAAP are met. The combination of two or more contracts requires judgment in determining whether the intent of entering into the contracts was effectively to enter into a single project, which should be combined to reflect an overall profit rate. Similarly, we may segment a project, which may consist of a single contract or group of contracts, with varying rates of profitability, only if the applicable criteria under U.S. GAAP are met. Judgment also is involved in determining whether a single contract or group of contracts may be segmented based on how the arrangement was negotiated and the performance criteria. The decision to combine a group of contracts or segment a contract could change the amount of revenue and gross profit recorded in a given period.

The selection of a method to measure progress toward completion of a contract also requires judgment and is based on the nature of the products or services to be provided. We generally use the cost-to-cost measure of progress for our long-term contracts unless we believe another method more clearly measures progress toward completion of the contract. Under the cost-to-cost measure of progress, the extent of progress toward completion is measured based on the ratio of costs incurred to date to the total estimated costs at completion of the contract. Contract costs include labor, materials and subcontractors costs, as well as an allocation of indirect costs. Revenues, including estimated fees or profits, are recorded as costs are incurred. Due to the nature of the work required to be performed on many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenue and cost at completion (the process for which we describe below in more detail) is complex and subject to many variables. Incentive and award fees generally are awarded at the discretion of the customer or upon achievement of certain program milestones or cost targets. Incentive and award fees, as well as penalties related to contract performance, are considered in estimating profit rates. Estimates of award fees are based on actual awards and anticipated performance, which may include the performance of subcontractors or partners depending on the individual contract requirements. Incentive provisions that increase or decrease earnings based solely on a single significant event generally are not recognized until the event occurs. Such incentives and penalties are recorded when there is sufficient information for us to assess anticipated performance. Our claims on contracts are recorded only if it is probable that the claim will result in additional contract revenue and the amounts can be reliably estimated.

We have a companywide standard and disciplined quarterly Estimate at Completion (EAC) process in which management reviews the progress and performance of our contracts. As part of this process, management reviews information including, but not limited to, any outstanding key contract matters, progress toward completion and the related program schedule, identified risks and opportunities, and the related changes in estimates of revenues and costs. The risks and opportunities include management's judgment about the ability and cost to achieve the schedule (e.g., the number and type of milestone events), technical requirements (e.g., a newly-developed product versus a mature product) and other contract requirements. Management must make assumptions and estimates regarding labor productivity and availability, the complexity of the work to be performed, the availability of materials, the length of time to complete the contract (e.g., to estimate increases in wages and prices for materials and related support cost allocations), performance by our subcontractors, the availability and timing of funding from our customer, and overhead cost rates, among other variables. These estimates also include the estimated cost of satisfying our industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset obligations, required under certain contracts. Based on this analysis, any quarterly adjustments to net sales, cost of sales, and the related impact to operating income are recognized as necessary in the period they become known. These adjustments may result from positive program performance, and may result in an increase in operating income during the performance of individual contracts, if we determine we will be successful in mitigating risks surrounding the technical, schedule, and cost aspects of those contracts or in realizing related opportunities. Likewise, these adjustments may result in a decrease in operating income if we determine we will not be

Table of Contents

successful in mitigating these risks or in realizing related opportunities. Changes in estimates of net sales, cost of sales, and the related impact to operating income are recognized quarterly on a cumulative catch-up basis, which recognizes in the current period the cumulative effect of the changes on current and prior periods based on a contract's percentage of completion. A significant change in one or more of these estimates could affect the profitability of one or more of our contracts. When estimates of total costs to be incurred on a contract exceed total estimates of revenue to be earned, a provision for the entire loss on the contract is recognized in the period the loss is determined.

Net EAC adjustments had the following impact on our operating results:



(In millions, except per share amounts)	2015		2014		2013
Operating income	$	371	$	513	$	557
Income from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company	241		333		362
Diluted EPS from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company	$	0.79	$	1.07	$	1.12

Other Considerations—The majority of our sales are driven by pricing based on costs incurred to produce products or perform services under contracts with the U.S. government. Cost-based pricing is determined under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR provides guidance on the types of costs that are allowable in establishing prices for goods and services under U.S. government contracts. For example, costs such as those related to charitable contributions, certain merger and acquisition costs, lobbying costs, interest expense and certain litigation defense costs are unallowable. In addition, we may enter into agreements with the U.S. government that address the allowability and allocation of costs to contracts for specific matters. Certain costs incurred in the performance of our U.S. government contracts are required to be recorded under U.S. GAAP but are not currently allocable to contracts. Such costs are deferred and primarily include a portion of our environmental expenses, asset retirement obligations, certain restructuring costs, deferred state income taxes, workers’ compensation and certain other accruals. These costs are allocated to contracts when they are paid or otherwise agreed. We regularly assess the probability of recovery of these costs. This assessment requires us to make assumptions about the extent of cost recovery under our contracts and the amount of future contract activity. If the level of backlog in the future does not support the continued deferral of these costs, the profitability of our remaining contracts could be adversely affected.

Pension and other postretirement benefits (PRB) costs are allocated to our contracts as allowed costs based upon the U.S. government Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). The CAS requirements for pension and PRB costs differ from the Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) requirements under U.S. GAAP. Given the inability to match with reasonable certainty individual expense and income items between the CAS and FAS requirements to determine specific recoverability, we have not estimated the incremental FAS income or expense to be recoverable under our expected future contract activity, and therefore did not defer any FAS expense for pension and PRB plans in 2013–2015. This resulted in $185 million of income, $286 million of income and $249 million of expense in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, reflected in our consolidated results of operations as the difference between CAS and FAS requirements for our pension and PRB plans in those years.

Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits (PRB) Costs

We have pension plans covering the majority of our employees, including certain employees in foreign countries. We must calculate our pension and PRB costs under both U.S. government CAS requirements and FAS requirements under U.S. GAAP, and both calculations require judgment. U.S. GAAP outlines the methodology used to determine pension and PRB expense or income for financial reporting purposes, which is not indicative of the funding requirements for pension and PRB plans that we determine under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). CAS prescribes the allocation to and recovery of pension and PRB costs on U.S. government contracts. The CAS requirements for pension and PRB costs and its calculation methodology differ from the FAS requirements and calculation methodology. As a result, while both CAS and FAS use long-term assumptions in their calculation methodologies, each method results in different calculated amounts of pension and PRB cost. In addition, we are subject to the funding requirements under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), which amended ERISA. Under the PPA, we are required to fully fund our pension plans over a rolling seven-year period as determined annually based upon the PPA calculated funded status at the beginning of each year. The funding requirements are primarily based on the year’s expected service cost and amortization of other previously unfunded liabilities.

We record CAS expense in our business segment results. Due to the differences between FAS and CAS amounts, we also present the difference between FAS and CAS expense, referred to as our FAS/CAS Adjustment, as a separate line item in our segment results. This effectively increases or decreases the amount of total pension expense in our results of operations so that such amount is equal to the FAS expense amount under U.S. GAAP. Due to the foregoing differences in requirements

Table of Contents

and calculation methodologies, our FAS pension expense or income is not indicative of the funding requirements or amount of government recovery.

On December 27, 2011, the CAS Pension Harmonization Rule (CAS Harmonization) was published in the Federal Register. The rule intends to improve the alignment of the pension cost recovered through contract pricing under CAS and the pension funding requirements under the PPA. The rule shortened the CAS amortization period for gains and losses from 15 to 10 years and requires the use of a discount rate based on high quality corporate bonds, consistent with PPA, to measure liabilities in determining the CAS pension expense. CAS Harmonization increases pension costs under CAS and the related FAS/CAS Pension Adjustment results in an increase to income in 2014 and beyond, primarily due to the liability measurement transition period of 0% in 2013, 25% in 2014, 50% in 2015, 75% in 2016 and 100% in 2017 included in the rule. Because CAS Harmonization is a mandatory change in cost accounting for government contractors, we may be entitled to an equitable adjustment for some portion of the increase in costs on contracts which we are currently negotiating with the government.

In July 2012, the Surface Transportation Extension Act (STE Act), was passed by Congress and signed by the President. The STE Act includes a provision for temporary pension funding relief due to the low interest rate environment. The provision adjusts the 24-month average high quality corporate bond rates used to determine the PPA funded status so that they are within a floor and cap, or “corridor,” based on the 25-year average of corporate bond rates. The STE Act gradually phased out this interest rate provision beginning in 2013. Subsequent to the STE Act, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HATFA) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) further extended this interest rate provision until 2020, at which time the provision is gradually phased out. The STE, HATFA and BBA impact CAS expense as well because CAS Harmonization incorporates the PPA interest rate into CAS calculations.

The BBA also increases the insurance premiums that we are required to pay the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). However, we do not expect the increases to have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

The assumptions in the calculations of our pension FAS expense and CAS expense, which involve significant judgment, are described below.

FAS Expense—Our long-term return on plan assets (ROA) and discount rate assumptions are the key variables in determining pension expense or income and the funded status of our pension plans under U.S. GAAP.

The long-term ROA represents the average rate of earnings expected over the long term on the assets invested to provide for anticipated future benefit payment obligations. The long-term ROA used to calculate net periodic pension cost is set annually at the beginning of each year. Given the long-term nature of the ROA assumption, which we believe should not be solely reactive to short-term market conditions that may not persist, we expect the long-term ROA to remain unchanged unless there are significant changes in our investment strategy, the underlying economic assumptions, or other major factors. To establish our long-term ROA assumption we employ a “building block” approach.

As part of our annual process for determining whether it is appropriate to change our long-term ROA assumption, we first review the existing long-term ROA assumption against a statistically determined reasonable range of outcomes. For purposes of determining the long-term ROA assumption for 2014 and prior, we considered this range to be between the 25th and 75th percentile likelihood of achieving a long-term return over future years, consistent with the Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 27, Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations (ASOP 27) in effect at the time. Therefore, it is less than 25% likely that the long-term return of the pension plan would fall below or above the 25th and 75th percentiles points, respectively (i.e., it is 50% likely that the long-term return of the pension plan will be within the 25th and 75th percentile range). In September 2013, the Actuarial Standards Board issued a revision to ASOP 27, that replaced the explicit reference to the best estimate range concept with the selection of a reasonable assumption that considers multiple criteria including the purposes of measurement, the actuary’s professional judgment, historical and current economic data and estimates of future experience and has no significant bias. The revised standard is effective for assumptions established on or after September 30, 2014. As a result of the revised standard, we continue to evaluate our long-term ROA assumption against a reasonable range of possible outcomes but, effective for our 2015 and future years assumptions, we modified that range to be between the 35th to 65th percentile likelihood of achieving a long-term return over future years. We believe that continuing to validate our ROA assumption within a reasonable range that is narrowed to the 35th to 65th percentiles ensures an unbiased result while also ensuring that the ROA assumption is not solely reactive to short-term market conditions that may not persist, and is consistent with external actuarial practices. The building block approach and the reasonable range of outcomes are based

Table of Contents

upon our asset allocation assumptions and long-term capital market assumptions. Such assumptions incorporate the economic outlook for various asset classes over short- and long-term periods and also take into consideration other factors, including historical market performance, inflation and interest rates.

The reasonable range of long-term returns that was used to validate the long-term ROA assumption for the calculation of the net periodic benefit cost for 2015, 2014 and 2013, are shown below.



Percentile	2015		2014		2013
25^th	N/A		5.53	%	5.62	%
35^th	6.37	%	N/A		N/A
65^th	8.37	%	N/A		N/A
75^th	N/A		9.65	%	9.41	%

The long-term domestic ROA of 8.75% for 2014 and 2013 fell between the 60th–65th percentile and 65th–70th percentile of the applicable reasonable range for 2014 and 2013, respectively. The 50th percentile of the reasonable range used to develop the 2014 and 2013 long-term ROA was 7.59% and 7.51%, respectively.

In the fourth quarter of 2014, we reduced our long-term target allocation for equities and increased our target allocation for fixed income within the investment policy allocations established by our Investment Committee in order to reduce the overall exposure to equity volatility. This change in asset allocation reduced the range of reasonable outcomes that we use to evaluate our long-term ROA assumption and we determined that the historical assumption of 8.75% no longer fell within this range. To develop our 2015 long-term ROA assumption, we employed a building block approach. Under this building block method, the overall expected investment return equals the weighted-average of the individual expected return for each asset class based on the target asset allocation and the long-term capital market assumptions. The expected return for each asset class is composed of inflation plus a risk-free rate of return, plus an expected risk premium for that asset class. The resulting return is then adjusted for administrative, investment management and trading expenses as well as recognition of alpha for active management. The building block approach resulted in a long-term ROA assumption of 8.0% for 2015. To validate this assumption we compared the result against the reasonable range of outcomes and confirmed that the 8.0% result falls between the 55th–60th percentile of the reasonable range for 2015 with the 50th percentile at 7.37%. In addition, when we updated our target asset allocation and our long-term ROA assumption changed from 8.75% to 8.0%, we assessed what our historical asset performance may have been since 1986 using the updated target allocation and concluded the average return would likely have been equal to or greater than 8.0% for the time period from 1986 through 2014.

Based upon our application of the building block approach and our review of the resulting assumption against the 35th to 65th reasonable range and an analysis of our historical results, we have established a 2015 long-term ROA assumption of 8.0% and have determined that the new assumption is reasonable and consistent with the provisions of ASOP 27. If we significantly change our long-term investment allocation or strategy, or if there is a significant change in the economic assumptions, then our long-term ROA assumption could change in the future.

The reasonable range of long-term returns used to validate our assumption for the calculation of the net periodic benefit cost for 2016 is between 6.09% at the 35th percentile and 8.16% at the 65th percentile. The long-term ROA assumption of 8.0%, which is used in the calculation of net periodic benefit cost for 2016, falls between the 60th–65th percentile of the reasonable range results with the 50th percentile at 7.12%.

Once our long-term ROA has been determined to be within the 35th to 65th percentile range of results, we review historical averages and patterns of returns to confirm reasonability of our long-term ROA assumption compared to past results. While history is not solely indicative of future market expectations, it does provide insight into general historical trends and long-term asset performance. Our average annual actual rate of return from 1986 to 2015 of 8.88%, determined on an arithmetic basis, exceeds our estimated 8.0% assumed return. Arithmetic annual averages represent the simple average returns over independent annual periods, whereas geometric returns reflect the compound average returns of dependent annual periods. The average annual actual return on a geometric basis for the same period was 8.20%. In addition, the actual annual returns have exceeded our long-term ROA assumption of 8.0% in five of the past ten years.

Table of Contents

Our domestic pension plans’ actual rates of return were approximately 0%, 6% and 15% for 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The difference between the actual rate of return and our long-term ROA assumption is included in deferred losses.

The investment policy asset allocation ranges for our domestic pension plans, as set by our Investment Committee, for the year ended December 31, 2015 were as follows:



Asset Category
Global equity (combined U.S. and international equity)		40%–60%
U.S. equities		25%–40%
International equities		15%–25%
Fixed-income securities		25%–40%
Cash and cash equivalents		1%–10%
Private equity and private real estate		5%–22%
Other (including absolute return funds)		5%–20%

Our long-term ROA assumptions for foreign Pension Benefits plans are based on the asset allocations and the economic environment prevailing in the locations where the Pension Benefits plans reside. Foreign pension assets do not make up a significant portion of the total assets for all of our Pension Benefits plans.

The discount rate represents the interest rate that should be used to determine the present value of future cash flows currently expected to be required to settle our pension and PRB obligations. The discount rate assumption is determined by using a theoretical bond portfolio model consisting of bonds rated AA or better by Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s) for which the timing and amount of cash flows approximate the estimated benefit payments for each of our pension plans. The discount rate assumption for our domestic pension plans at December 31, 2015 is 4.47%, which represents a weighted-average discount rate across our plans, compared to the December 31, 2014 discount rate of 4.08%.

CAS Expense—In addition to providing the methodology for calculating pension costs, CAS also prescribes the method for assigning those costs to specific periods. While the ultimate liability for pension costs under FAS and CAS is similar, the pattern of cost recognition is different. The key drivers of CAS pension expense include the funded status and the method used to calculate CAS reimbursement for each of our plans. Under the prior CAS rules, the discount rate used to measure liabilities was required to be consistent with the long-term ROA assumption, which changes infrequently given its long-term nature. In addition to certain other changes, CAS Harmonization requires contractors to compare the liability under the prior CAS methodology and assumptions to a liability using a discount rate based on high-quality corporate bonds, and use the greater of the two liability calculations in developing CAS expense. In addition, unlike FAS, we can only allocate pension costs for a plan under CAS until such plan is fully funded as determined under CAS requirements. When the estimated future CAS pension costs increase, the estimated CAS cost allocated to our contracts in the future increases.

Other FAS and CAS Considerations—An increase or decrease of 25 basis points in the discount rate assumption would have had the following approximate impacts on 2015 FAS pension results:



(In millions)
Impact of change in discount rate on net periodic benefit cost	$	63
Impact of change in discount rate on benefit obligations	780

Changes in the high-quality corporate bond rate assumption could impact the CAS discount rate for purposes of determining CAS pension expense due to CAS Harmonization. However in 2015, the CAS pension expense was not impacted by this assumption due to the passage of HATFA which extended the provisions of pension funding relief as described above. The discount rate assumption could impact CAS pension expense in future periods depending upon the interest rate and regulatory environments.

Table of Contents

An increase or decrease of 25 basis points in the long-term ROA assumption would have had the following approximate impacts on 2015 FAS and CAS pension results:



(In millions)
FAS expense	$	(46	)
CAS expense	13
FAS/CAS Pension Adjustment	$	(33	)

A 25 basis point increase or decrease in our long-term ROA assumption would result in a decrease or increase to our FAS pension expense by approximately $46 million for 2015. In addition to the impact on our 2015 FAS/CAS Pension Adjustment, a portion of the $13 million change in CAS pension expense would also be allocated to fixed-price contracts in backlog and would either increase or decrease the profit rate on those contracts at the time of such a change (i.e., a change in the long-term ROA assumption on January 1, 2015 would drive a change in estimated costs in EACs and related contract profit rates as of December 31, 2014). The contract impact resulting from the change in CAS pension expense is difficult to estimate because remaining performance periods can vary, the amount and timing of expected new awards (i.e., the proposals expected to be awarded in the year which will bear their allocated portion of the change in CAS pension expense), and our mix of fixed-price and cost reimbursable contracts can change. Based on our contract profile at December 31, 2014, if we had 60% of our backlog in fixed-price contracts, and they were on average 50% complete, with our actual new award profile for 2015, a 25 basis point change in our long-term ROA assumption at January 1, 2015 would drive approximately $2 million of aggregate total EAC adjustments at December 31, 2014. In addition, our fixed-price contracts in backlog as of December 31, 2014 would have a lower profit rate in 2015, resulting in approximately $1 million impact as costs are incurred in that year on those contracts. The total impact on 2014 would be approximately $2 million driven by the aggregate EAC adjustments and the total impact on 2015 would be approximately $34 million (the FAS/CAS Pension Adjustment and the lower profit rate impact in 2015 on fixed-price contracts in backlog at December 31, 2014). A change in our long-term ROA assumption would be subject to review by our government customer for reasonableness. Given our history of recovering changes to CAS pension expense, we expect the assumption change would be allocable and allowable, per regulatory guidelines, as long as the assumption is reasonable. The transition to CAS Harmonization may gradually reduce the impact that a change to the long-term ROA assumption will have on CAS pension expense in future years as CAS Harmonization is phased in.

The impact of changing our long-term ROA for our domestic pension plans from 8.75% to 8.0% in 2015 increased our FAS expense by $140 million, increased our CAS expense by $40 million and decreased our FAS/CAS pension adjustment to income by $100 million in 2015. This CAS impact to 2015 varies from the theoretical impact to 2015 described above because the CAS impact in any one year depends on the actual change in the long-term ROA and is not linear. The CAS impact is primarily driven by whether the pre-CAS Harmonization methodology applies, which uses a discount rate based on the long-term ROA assumption, or the post-CAS Harmonization methodology applies, which uses a discount rate based on high-quality corporate bonds, and the corresponding relationship between the long-term ROA and the high-quality corporate bond rate. In addition, the timing of the change relative to the transition period for CAS Harmonization affects the CAS impact. The $40 million increase in our CAS expense in 2015 was included in our EACs and did not have a significant impact on our 2014 results based on our overall ending overhead positions.

In accordance with both FAS and CAS, a calculated “market-related value” of our plan assets is used to develop the amount of deferred asset gains or losses to be amortized. The market-related value of assets is determined using actual asset gains or losses over a certain prior period (three years for FAS and five years for CAS, subject to certain limitations under CAS on the difference between the market-related value and actual market value of assets). Because of this difference in the number of years over which actual asset gains or losses are recognized and subsequently amortized, FAS expense generally tends to reflect recent asset gains or losses faster than CAS. Another driver of CAS expense (but not FAS expense) is the funded status of our pension plans under CAS. As noted above, CAS expense is only recognized for plans that are not fully funded; consequently, if plans become or cease to be fully funded under CAS due to our asset or liability experience, our CAS expense will change accordingly.

Under FAS, a “corridor” approach may be elected and applied in the recognition of asset and liability gains or losses which limits expense recognition to the net outstanding gains and losses in excess of the greater of 10% of the projected benefit obligation or the calculated "market-related value" of assets. We do not use a “corridor” approach in the calculation of FAS expense.

Table of Contents

Our Pension and PRB plan’s investments are stated at fair value. Investments in equity securities (common and preferred) are valued at the last reported sales price when an active market exists. Investments in fixed-income securities are generally valued using methods based upon market transactions for comparable securities and various relationships between securities which are generally recognized by institutional traders. Investments in private equity funds, private real estate funds, and other commingled funds are estimated at fair market value which primarily utilizes net asset values reported by the investment manager or fund administrator. We review additional valuation and pricing information from the fund managers, including audited financial statements, to evaluate the net asset values.

The change in accumulated other comprehensive loss (AOCL) related to pension and PRB plans was as follows:



(In millions)	2015			2014			2013
Beginning balance	$	(11,437	)	$	(7,923	)	$	(12,051	)
Amortization of net losses included in net income	1,135			898			1,161
Gain (loss) arising during the period	(610		)	(4,412		)	2,967
Ending balance	$	(10,912	)	$	(11,437	)	$	(7,923	)

The balance in AOCL related to our pension and PRB plans is composed primarily of differences between changes in discount rates, differences between actual and expected asset returns, differences between actual and assumed demographic experience, and changes in plan provisions. Changes to our pension and PRB obligation as a result of these variables are initially reflected in other comprehensive income. The deferred gains and losses are amortized and included in future pension expense over the average employee service period of approximately 10 years at December 31, 2015. The $0.6 billion in 2015 losses arising during the period were driven primarily by actual returns, which were lower than our expected return and had an impact of approximately $1.6 billion, as well as other actuarial factors, partially offset by the increase in the discount rate from 4.08% at December 31, 2014 to 4.47% at December 31, 2015, which had an impact of approximately $1.2 billion.

The $4.4 billion in 2014 losses arising during the period were driven primarily by the decrease in the discount rate from 5.08% at December 31, 2013 to 4.08% at December 31, 2014, which had an impact of approximately $3.0 billion, and actual returns which were lower than our expected return and had an impact of approximately $0.3 billion, as well as other actuarial factors including mortality. The mortality assumption is the basis for determining the longevity of our pension participants and the expected period over which they will receive pension benefits. A 2014 study released by the Society of Actuaries indicated that life expectancies have increased over the past several years and are longer than what was assumed by most existing mortality tables. Since December, 31, 2014, our pension obligations reflect a change in the underlying mortality assumption, which reflects improvements in life expectancy consistent with the Society of Actuaries 2014 study. In addition, these pension obligations reflect an increase in the expected rate of future longevity improvement taking into consideration data from multiple sources including the Society of Actuaries 2014 study and Social Security Administration data. These changes resulted in an increase in our projected benefit obligation of $0.6 billion as of December 31, 2014.

The $3.0 billion in 2013 gains arising during the period were driven primarily by the increase in the discount rate from 4.15% at December 31, 2012 to 5.08% at December 31, 2013, which had an impact of approximately $2.4 billion and actual returns, which were higher than our expected return, which had an impact of approximately $1.1 billion, partially offset by other actuarial factors.

Goodwill

We evaluate our goodwill for impairment annually as of the first day of our fiscal fourth quarter and in any interim period in which circumstances arise that indicate our goodwill may be impaired. Indicators of impairment include, but are not limited to, the loss of significant business, significant decreases in federal government appropriations or funding for our contracts, or other significant adverse changes in industry or market conditions. No events occurred during the periods presented that indicated the existence of an impairment with respect to our goodwill. We estimate the fair value of our reporting units using a discounted cash flow (DCF) model based on our most recent long-range plan in place at the time of our impairment testing, and compare the estimated fair value of each reporting unit to its net book value, including goodwill. We discount the cash flow forecasts using the weighted-average cost of capital method at the date of evaluation. The weighted-average cost of capital is comprised of the estimated required rate of return on equity, based on publicly available data for peer companies, plus an equity risk premium related to specific company risk factors, and the after-tax rate of return on debt, weighted at the relative values of the estimated debt and equity for the industry. Preparation of forecasts for use in the long-range plan and

Table of Contents

the selection of the discount rate involve significant judgments that we base primarily on existing firm orders, expected future orders, contracts with suppliers, labor agreements and general market conditions. Significant changes in these forecasts or the discount rate selected could affect the estimated fair value of one or more of our reporting units and could result in a goodwill impairment charge in a future period. When available and as appropriate, we also use comparative market multiples to corroborate our DCF model results. There was no indication of goodwill impairment as a result of our 2015 annual impairment analysis, as the fair values of each of our reporting units exceeded their respective net book values, including goodwill.

In May 2015, we completed a series of transactions with Vista Equity Partners by which we acquired Websense and combined it with RCP, formerly part of our IIS segment, and then sold a minority interest in the combined company to Vista Equity Partners to establish Forcepoint, a new cybersecurity joint venture company (with Vista Equity Partners). In connection with these transactions, we reorganized our operating and reporting structure with Forcepoint as our fifth reporting segment. Our Forcepoint reporting unit, the majority of which was acquired in the second quarter of 2015, had a fair value in excess of net book value, including goodwill, of greater than 10%. All other factors equal, a 10% decrease in expected future cash flows for our Forcepoint reporting unit would result in an excess of fair value over net book value of approximately 3%. Alternatively, all other factors being equal, a 100 basis points increase in the discount rate used in the calculation of the fair value of our Forcepoint reporting unit would also result in an excess of fair value over net book value of approximately 3%. Based on our 2015 impairment analysis of the other reporting units, the reporting unit that was closest to impairment had a fair value in excess of net book value, including goodwill, of approximately 85%. All other factors equal, a 10% decrease in expected future cash flows for that reporting unit would result in an excess of fair value over net book value of approximately 70%. Alternatively, all other factors being equal, a 100 basis points increase in the discount rate used in the calculation of the fair value of that reporting unit would result in an excess of fair value over net book value of approximately 55%. If we are required to record an impairment charge in the future, it could materially affect our results of operations.

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

In November 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standard Update (ASU) 2015-17, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes, which requires all deferred income tax assets and liabilities to be classified as noncurrent on the balance sheet. The new standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 with early adoption permitted. We have elected to early adopt this requirement retrospectively in the current period. We reclassified $165 million of net current deferred income tax liabilities from current to noncurrent at December 31, 2014.

In May 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-07, Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent), which, for all investments for which fair value is measured using the net asset value per share practical expedient, removes the requirement to make certain disclosures and to categorize them within the fair value hierarchy. The new standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016 with early adoption permitted. We have elected to early adopt this requirement retrospectively in the current period.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-03, Interest-Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, which requires that debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability. The new standard is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015 and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. We have elected to early adopt this requirement retrospectively in the current period. We reclassified $5 million of debt issuance costs from other assets, net, to a reduction of long-term debt at December 31, 2014.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) which will replace numerous requirements in U.S. GAAP, including industry-specific requirements, and provide companies with a single revenue recognition model for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers. The core principle of the new standard is that a company should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. Under the new standard, we expect to continue using the cost-to-cost percentage of completion method to recognize revenue for most of our long-term contracts. The two permitted transition methods under the new standard are the full retrospective method, in which case the standard would be applied to each prior reporting period presented, or the modified retrospective method, in which case the cumulative effect of applying the standard would be recognized at the date of initial application. We have not yet selected a transition method. We are currently evaluating the potential changes from this ASU to our future financial reporting and disclosures. On July 9, 2015, the FASB approved the deferral of the new standard's effective date by one year. The new standard now

Table of Contents

would be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The FASB will permit companies to adopt the new standard early, but not before the original effective date of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016.

Other new pronouncements issued but not effective until after December 31, 2015 are not expected to have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Total Net Sales

The composition of external net sales by products and services for each segment in 2015 was approximately the following:



(% of segment total external net sales)	IDS	IIS	MS	SAS	Forcepoint
Products⁽¹⁾	90%	45%	100%	95%	95%
Services	10%	55%	—%	5%	5%

(1) Products net sales includes software related sales, including software subscriptions.



							% of Total Net Sales
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2013		2015		2014		2013
Net sales
Products	$	19,443	$	19,126	$	19,855	83.6	%	83.8	%	83.8	%
Services	3,804		3,700		3,851		16.4	%	16.2	%	16.2	%
Total net sales	$	23,247	$	22,826	$	23,706	100.0	%	100.0	%	100.0	%

Total Net Sales - 2015 vs. 2014—The increase in total net sales of $421 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher external net sales of $328 million at IDS, $244 million at MS and $159 million at Forcepoint including the unfavorable impact of the deferred revenue adjustment recorded at Corporate, partially offset by lower external net sales of $212 million at SAS and $98 million at IIS. The increase in external net sales at IDS was primarily due to higher net sales from an international Patriot program awarded in the second quarter of 2015 driven by program activity and the recognition of previously deferred precontract costs, higher net sales from an international Patriot program awarded in the fourth quarter of 2014, higher net sales on the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program driven by additional scope awarded in the fourth quarter of 2014 and higher net change in EAC adjustments as discussed below in Segment Results, and higher net sales from an international air and missile defense system program awarded in the fourth quarter of 2013 due to scheduled production phases. The higher net sales at IDS were partially offset by lower net sales from the scheduled completion of certain production phases on various Patriot programs for international customers and from the scheduled completion of certain production phases on our missile defense radar programs. The increase in external net sales at MS was primarily due to higher net sales on the Paveway™ program principally driven by international requirements, higher net sales on the Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wireless-guided (TOW®) missile program primarily due to planned increases in production, and higher net sales on certain air and missile defense programs primarily due to a contract awarded in the third quarter of 2015, partially offset by lower net sales on the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3®) program primarily due to the planned transition from development to production. The increase in external net sales at Forcepoint was primarily due to higher sales of $160 million resulting from the acquisition of Websense in the second quarter of 2015, including the unfavorable impact of the deferred revenue adjustment recorded at Corporate. Included in the change in external net sales at SAS was lower net sales primarily due to reduced schedule requirements on international tactical radar systems programs, lower intersegment sales driven by lower volume on contracts supporting radar programs, and higher net sales on classified programs. The remaining change in total net sales at SAS was spread across numerous programs with no individual or common significant driver. The decrease in external net sales at IIS was primarily due to lower net sales on training programs supporting the U.S. Army's Warfighter FOCUS activities due to a decrease in customer-determined activity levels and lower net sales on a classified program for an international customer, partially offset by higher net sales on cybersecurity and special missions programs excluding a classified program for an international customer, primarily driven by the fourth quarter of 2014 acquisition of Raytheon Blackbird Technologies (RBT).

Products and Services Net Sales - 2015 vs. 2014—The increase in products net sales of $317 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher external products net sales of $262 million at MS, $186 million at IDS, and $161 million at Forcepoint, partially offset by lower external products net sales of $169 million at IIS and $123 million at SAS. The increase

Table of Contents

in external products net sales at MS and IDS was primarily due to the programs discussed above. The increase in external products net sales at Forcepoint was principally driven by the acquisition of Websense. The decrease in external products net sales at IIS was primarily due to lower net sales on a classified program for an international customer. The decrease in external products net sales at SAS was primarily due to the international tactical radar systems programs discussed above. The increase in services net sales of $104 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher external services net sales of $142 million at IDS, driven principally by higher services net sales on radar sustainment programs for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and new service program awards, partially offset by lower services net sales on various other programs.

Total Net Sales - 2014 vs. 2013—The decrease in total net sales of $880 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to lower external net sales of $404 million at IDS and $267 million at MS. The decrease in external net sales at IDS was primarily due to lower net sales from the scheduled completion of certain production phases on various Patriot programs for international customers, lower net sales on a close combat tactical radar program due to planned decreases in production and lower net sales on a missile defense radar program for an international customer also due to planned decreases in production. The decrease in external net sales at IDS was partially offset by higher net sales from an international air defense system program awarded in the fourth quarter of 2013, higher net sales from an international Patriot program awarded in the first quarter of 2014 and higher net sales from an international Patriot program awarded in the fourth quarter of 2014 driven primarily by previously deferred precontract costs. The remaining decrease at IDS was spread across numerous programs with no individual or common significant driver. The decrease in external net sales at MS was primarily due to lower net sales on land warfare systems programs driven principally by planned declines in production due to the U.S. Army budget environment.

Products and Services Net Sales - 2014 vs. 2013—The decrease in products net sales of $729 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to lower external products net sales of $403 million at IDS and $263 million at MS, both driven principally by the programs described above. The decrease in services net sales of $151 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to lower external service net sales at IIS of $118 million, driven principally by lower net sales on training programs supporting the U.S. Army's Warfighter FOCUS activities resulting from a decrease in customer-determined activity levels.

Sales to Major Customers—The following is a breakdown of net sales to major customers:



							% of Total Net Sales
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2013		2015		2014		2013
Sales to the U.S. government⁽¹⁾	$	15,767	$	16,083	$	17,019	68	%	70	%	72	%
Sales to the U.S. Department of Defense⁽¹⁾	14,876		15,059		16,015		64	%	66	%	68	%
Total international sales⁽²⁾	7,150		6,541		6,446		31	%	29	%	27	%
Foreign direct commercial sales⁽¹⁾	4,336		3,579		3,384		19	%	16	%	14	%
Foreign military sales through the U.S. government	2,814		2,962		3,062		12	%	13	%	13	%


(1)	Excludes foreign military sales through the U.S. government.


(2)	Includes foreign military sales through the U.S. government.

As described above in Industry Considerations, U.S. defense spending levels are difficult to predict due to numerous factors, including U.S. government budget appropriation decisions, geopolitical events and macroeconomic conditions.

Total Cost of Sales

Cost of sales, for both products and services, consists of labor, materials and subcontractors costs, as well as related allocated costs. For each of our contracts, we manage the nature and amount of direct costs at the contract level, and manage indirect costs through cost pools as required by government accounting regulations. The estimate of the actual amount of direct and indirect costs forms the basis for estimating our total costs at completion of the contract.

Table of Contents



							% of Total Net Sales
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2013		2015		2014		2013
Cost of sales
Products	$	14,447	$	14,260	$	15,292	62.1	%	62.5	%	64.5	%
Services	3,127		3,035		3,240		13.5	%	13.3	%	13.7	%
Total cost of sales	$	17,574	$	17,295	$	18,532	75.6	%	75.8	%	78.2	%

Total Cost of Sales - 2015 vs. 2014—The increase in total cost of sales of $279 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher external cost of sales of $378 million at IDS and $114 million at MS and $101 million of higher expense related to the FAS/CAS Adjustment as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48, partially offset by lower external cost of sales of $255 million at IIS and $181 million at SAS. The increases in external cost of sales at IDS and MS were driven principally by the activity on the programs described above in Total Net Sales. The decrease in external cost of sales at IIS was driven principally by a $181 million impact from the eBorders settlement in 2015. In March 2015, Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL) reached a settlement with the UK Home Office concluding the parties' dispute regarding the UK Home Office's July 2010 termination of RSL's eBorders contract within our IIS segment. The settlement included a cash payment from the UK Home Office to RSL of £150 million (approximately $226 million based on foreign exchange rates as of the settlement date) for the resolution of all claims and counterclaims of both parties related to the matter. After certain expenses and derecognition of the outstanding receivables, IIS recorded $181 million in operating income through a reduction in cost of sales. The decrease in external cost of sales at SAS was primarily due to the programs described above in Total Net Sales.

Products and Services Cost of Sales - 2015 vs. 2014—The increase in products cost of sales of $187 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher external products cost of sales of $268 million at IDS and $127 million at MS, $83 million of higher expense related to the FAS/CAS Adjustment as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48 and $52 million of higher expense related to the amortization of acquired intangible assets associated with Forcepoint as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48. The increases in external products cost of sales at IDS and MS were driven principally by the activity on the programs described above in Total Net Sales. The increases in products cost of sales were partially offset by a decrease in external products cost of sales of $302 million at IIS and $109 million at SAS. The decrease in external products cost of sales at IIS was principally driven by a $181 million impact from the eBorders settlement described above. The decrease in external products cost of sales at SAS was primarily due to the programs described above in Total Net Sales. The increase in services cost of sales of $92 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher external services cost of sales of $110 million at IDS, driven principally by the programs described above in Total Net Sales.

Total Cost of Sales - 2014 vs. 2013—The decrease in total cost of sales of $1,237 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to a $535 million change in the FAS/CAS Adjustment and lower external cost of sales of $271 million at MS and $233 million at IDS. The change in the FAS/CAS Adjustment was primarily driven by a $345 million decrease in our FAS pension expense and by a $189 million increase in our CAS pension expense, which is included in the results of each segment and generally recovered through pricing of our products and services to the U.S. government. The changes in both our FAS expense and CAS expense are described in our Segment Results beginning on page 48. The decreases in external cost of sales at MS and IDS were driven principally by the activity on the programs described above in Total Net Sales.

Products and Services Cost of Sales - 2014 vs. 2013—The decrease in products cost of sales of $1,032 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to $441 million of lower expense related to the FAS/CAS Adjustment described above and lower external products cost of sales of $272 million at MS and $229 million at IDS. The decreases in external products cost of sales at MS and IDS were principally driven by the programs described above in Total Net Sales. The decrease in services cost of sales of $205 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to $94 million of lower expense related to the FAS/CAS Adjustment described above and lower external services cost of sales of $82 million at IIS, principally driven by activity on training programs supporting the U.S. Army's Warfighter FOCUS activities due to a decrease in customer-determined activity levels.

Table of Contents

General and Administrative Expenses



							% of Total Net Sales
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2013		2015		2014		2013
Administrative and selling expenses	$	1,954	$	1,852	$	1,771	8.4	%	8.1	%	7.5	%
Research and development expenses	706		500		465		3.0	%	2.2	%	2.0	%
Total general and administrative expenses	$	2,660	$	2,352	$	2,236	11.4	%	10.3	%	9.4	%

The increase in administrative and selling expenses of $102 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily driven by a $90 million increase in selling and marketing expenses at Forcepoint principally driven by the acquisition of Websense. Included in administrative and selling expenses in 2015 was $26 million of Websense transaction and integration-related costs recorded at Corporate as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48. Included in administrative and selling expenses in 2014 was $25 million of stock-based compensation expense associated with the issuance of restricted stock units (RSUs) as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48.

The increase in administrative and selling expenses of $81 million in 2014 compared to 2013 includes the $25 million of stock-based compensation expense associated with RSUs issued in 2014 as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48. There was no other individual or common significant driver of the increase in administrative and selling expenses.

Included in administrative and selling expenses is the provision for state income taxes, which generally can be recovered through the pricing of products and services to the U.S. government. Net state income taxes allocated to our contracts were $28 million, $41 million and $42 million in 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively.

The increase in research and development expenses of $206 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to higher independent research and development activity, principally driven by $79 million at MS related to advanced capabilities, and increased research and development expenses of $52 million at Forcepoint driven by our acquisition of Websense and development on new commercial products.

The increase in research and development expenses of $35 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to higher independent research and development activity related to electronic warfare technology.

Total Operating Expenses



							% of Total Net Sales
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2013		2015		2014		2013
Total operating expenses	$	20,234	$	19,647	$	20,768	87.0	%	86.1	%	87.6	%

The increase in total operating expenses of $587 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the increase in total cost of sales of $279 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in Total Cost of Sales, and the increase in research and development expenses of $206 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in General and Administrative Expenses.

The decrease in total operating expenses of $1,121 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to the decrease in total cost of sales of $1,237 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in Total Cost of Sales.

Operating Income



							% of Total Net Sales
(In millions, except percentages)	2015		2014		2013		2015		2014		2013
Total operating income	$	3,013	$	3,179	$	2,938	13.0	%	13.9	%	12.4	%

The decrease in operating income of $166 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was due to the increase in total operating expenses of $587 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in Total Operating Expenses, partially offset by the increase in total net sales of $421 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in Total Net Sales.

Table of Contents

The increase in operating income of $241 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was due to the decrease in total operating expenses of $1,121 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in Total Operating Expenses, offset by the decrease in total net sales of $880 million, the primary drivers of which are described above in Total Net Sales.

Total Non-Operating (Income) Expense, Net



(In millions)	2015			2014			2013
Non-operating (income) expense, net
Interest expense	$	233		$	213		$	210
Interest income	(11		)	(10		)	(12		)
Other expense (income), net	4			(7		)	(17		)
Total non-operating (income) expense, net	$	226		$	196		$	181

The increase in total non-operating (income) expense, net, of $30 million in 2015 compared to 2014, was primarily due to $20 million of higher interest expense in 2015, principally driven by the issuance of $600 million of fixed-rate long-term debt in the fourth quarter of 2014, and a $12 million change in the fair value of marketable securities held in trust associated with certain of our non-qualified deferred compensation plans, due to net losses of $1 million in 2015 compared to net gains of $11 million in 2014.

The increase in total non-operating (income) expense, net, of $15 million in 2014 compared to 2013, was primarily due to a $10 million change in the fair value of marketable securities held in trust associated with certain of our non-qualified deferred compensation plans, due to net gains of $11 million in 2014 compared to net gains of $21 million in 2013.

Federal and Foreign Income Taxes



(In millions)	2015		2014		2013
Federal and foreign income taxes	$	733	$	790	$	808

The decrease in federal and foreign income taxes of $57 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to a decrease in operating income. The decrease in federal and foreign income taxes of $18 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to the 2014 tax benefit of the foreign dividend described in more detail in "Note 15: Income Taxes" within Item 8 of this Form 10-K, offset by an increase in operating income.

Our effective tax rate, which is used to determine federal and foreign income tax expense, differs from the U.S. statutory rate due to the following:



	2015		2014		2013
Statutory tax rate	35.0	%	35.0	%	35.0	%
Research and development tax credit	(1.2	)	(1.1	)	(1.8	)
Tax settlements and refund claims	(3.2	)	(0.5	)	(0.8	)
Domestic manufacturing deduction benefit	(3.1	)	(2.7	)	(2.1	)
Foreign income tax rate differential	(1.4	)	(0.6	)	—
Tax benefit of foreign dividend	—		(2.8	)	—
Other items, net	0.2		(0.8	)	(1.0	)
Effective tax rate	26.3	%	26.5	%	29.3	%

Our effective tax rate reflects the 35% U.S. statutory rate adjusted for various permanent differences between book and tax reporting. In December 2015, U.S. legislation was enacted to permanently reinstate the Research and Development tax credit (R&D tax credit) which had expired December 31, 2014. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we recorded a full year benefit of approximately $33 million related to the 2015 R&D tax credit. In 2014, we recorded a full year benefit of approximately $30 million related to the 2014 R&D tax credit.

Table of Contents

Our effective tax rate in 2015 was lower than the statutory federal tax rate primarily due to tax settlements and refunds which decreased the rate by approximately 3.2%, the domestic manufacturing deduction which decreased the rate by approximately 3.1%, the foreign rate differential which decreased the rate by 1.4% and was primarily driven by the tax impact of the eBorders settlement, and the reinstatement of the R&D tax credit which decreased the rate by approximately 1.2%. The remaining increase of 0.2% is composed of various unrelated items which individually or collectively are not significant.

Our effective tax rate in 2014 was lower than the statutory federal tax rate primarily due to the tax benefit on the foreign dividend which decreased the rate by approximately 2.8%, the domestic manufacturing deduction which decreased the rate by approximately 2.7%, the reinstatement of the R&D tax credit which decreased the rate by approximately 1.1%, the foreign rate differential which decreased the rate by 0.6% and tax settlements and refunds which decreased the rate by approximately 0.5%.The remaining decrease of 0.8% is composed of various unrelated items which individually or collectively are not significant.

Our effective tax rate in 2013 was lower than the statutory federal tax rate primarily due to the domestic manufacturing deduction which decreased the rate by approximately 2.1%, the R&D tax credit which decreased the rate by approximately 1.8% and tax settlements and refunds which decreased the rate by approximately 0.8%. The remaining decrease of 1.0% is composed of various unrelated items which individually or collectively are not significant.

Our effective tax rate in 2015 was 0.2% lower than in 2014 primarily due to the tax settlements and refunds which decreased the rate by approximately 2.7%, partially offset by the 2014 tax benefit on the foreign dividend which increased the rate by approximately 2.8%. The remaining decrease of 0.3% is composed of various unrelated items which individually or collectively are not significant.

Our effective tax rate in 2014 was 2.8% lower than in 2013 primarily due to the tax benefit on the foreign dividend, which decreased the rate by approximately 2.8%, partially offset by the R&D tax credit which increased the rate by approximately 0.7%. The remaining decrease of 0.7% is composed of various unrelated items which individually or collectively are not significant.

Income from Continuing Operations



(In millions)	2015		2014		2013
Income from continuing operations	$	2,054	$	2,193	$	1,949

The decrease in income from continuing operations of $139 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the $166 million decrease in operating income, described above in Operating Income.

The increase in income from continuing operations of $244 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to the $241 million increase in operating income, described above in Operating Income.

Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax



(In millions)	2015		2014		2013
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax	$	13	$	65	$	64

The decrease in income from discontinued operations, net of tax, of $52 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to a gain of $52 million in 2014 related to the resolution of a dispute and related litigation with the U.S. government regarding pension segment closing adjustments under CAS 413 for previously divested operations.

Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax, in 2014 was relatively consistent with 2013. Included in income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax, in 2014 was a gain of $52 million related to the resolution of a dispute and related litigation with the U.S. government regarding pension segment closing adjustments under CAS 413 for previously divested operations as described below in Segment Results beginning on page 48.

In 2010, we recorded a $39 million charge, net of federal tax benefit, in discontinued operations related to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessing Flight Options LLC (Flight Options) for excise taxes. We contested the matter through litigation, and

Table of Contents

in the fourth quarter of 2013, we reached a settlement and recorded a $33 million gain, net of federal tax expense, in discontinued operations. Additionally in the fourth quarter of 2013, we reached a settlement regarding certain tax audits associated with our divestiture of Raytheon Aircraft Company and recorded a $25 million gain, net of federal tax expense, in discontinued operations.

Net Income



(In millions)	2015		2014		2013
Net income	$	2,067	$	2,258	$	2,013

The decrease in net income of $191 million in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the decrease in income from continuing operations of $139 million described above in Income from Continuing Operations.

The increase in net income of $245 million in 2014 compared to 2013 was due to the increase in income from continuing operations of $244 million described above in Income from Continuing Operations.

Diluted EPS from Continuing Operations Attributable to Raytheon Company Common Stockholders



(In millions, except per share amounts)	2015		2014		2013
Income from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company	$	2,061	$	2,179	$	1,932
Diluted weighted-average shares outstanding	305.2		312.6		324.2
Diluted EPS from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company	$	6.75	$	6.97	$	5.96

The decrease in diluted EPS from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company common stockholders of $0.22 in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the decrease in income from continuing operations described above in Income from Continuing Operations, partially offset by a decrease in weighted-average shares outstanding, which was driven by the common stock share activity shown in the table below. The increase in diluted EPS from continuing operations attributable to Raytheon Company common stockholders of $1.01 in 2014 compared to 2013 was primarily due to the increase in income from continuing operations described above in Income from Continuing Operations.

Our common stock share activity for the years ended 2015, 2014, and 2013 was as follows:



(Shares in millions)	2015		2014		2013
Beginning balance	307.3		314.5		328.1
Stock plans activity	1.6		1.4		2.4
Share repurchases	(9.9	)	(8.6	)	(16.0	)
Ending balance	299.0		307.3		314.5

Diluted EPS from Discontinued Operations Attributable to Raytheon Company Common Stockholders

Diluted EPS from discontinued operations attributable to Raytheon Company common stockholders were earnings of $0.04, $0.21 and $0.20 in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The decrease of $0.17 in 2015 compared to 2014 was primarily due to the resolution of a dispute and related litigation with the U.S. government in the second quarter of 2014 described above in Income (Loss) from Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax. Diluted EPS from discontinued operations attributable to Raytheon Company common stockholders in 2014 was relatively consistent with 2013.

Diluted EPS Attributable to Raytheon Company Common Stockholders



(In millions, except per share amounts)	2015		2014		2013
Net income attributable to Raytheon Company	$	2,074	$	2,244	$	1,996
Diluted weighted-average shares outstanding	305.2