Good morning, and welcome to the General Dynamics First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. Please note, this event is being recorded. And I would now like to turn the conference over to Nicole Shelton, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the General Dynamics First Quarter 2024 Conference Call. Any forward-looking statements made today represent our estimates regarding the company's outlook. These estimates are subject to some risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in the company's 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K filings. We will also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. For additional disclosures about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliations to comparable GAAP measures, please see the slides that accompany this webcast, which are available on the Investor Relations page of our website, investorrelations.gd.com. On the call today are Phebe Novakovic, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Kim Kuryea, Chief Financial Officer. I will now turn the call over to Phebe.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for being with us. As you can discern from our press release, we reported earnings of $2.88 per diluted share on revenue of $10.7 billion, operating earnings of $1.036 billion and net earnings of $799 million. These results compare quite favorably to the year-ago quarter. Revenue is up 8.6% against the first quarter last year. Operating earnings are up 10.4%. Net earnings are up 9.5%. As a result, earnings per diluted share are up $0.24, or 9.1% more than the year-ago quarter. The operating margin for the entire company was 9.7%, a 20 basis point improvement over the year-ago quarter. Overall, these numbers represent a very strong quarter and a good start to 2024. However, we fell below our own expectations for the quarter and below analyst consensus, which is predicated at least in part on our forecast. The rather obvious explanation is that we forecast 15 to 17 G700 deliveries in the quarter, which did not happen. We received FAA certification for the G700 at the very end of the quarter, too late to make any G700 deliveries. This obviously impacted revenue and earnings in the Aerospace group in the quarter. The good news is that we now have certification, and the delay in deliveries does not change our outlook for the year. Gulfstream still plans to deliver 50 to 52 G700s this year. So our Aerospace forecast for the year remains unchanged. I'll give you a little more color on this later in my remarks. Another good news, as you can see, was strong performance across the defense portfolio. In short, we performed very well in the quarter over those things within our control. At this point, let me ask Kim Kuryea, our CFO, to provide details on our order activity, solid backlog and cash activity before I come back with segment observations.

Thank you, Phebe, and good morning. I'll start with orders and backlog. We had a solid quarter from an orders perspective with an overall book-to-bill ratio of 1:1 for the company. Order activity was particularly strong in the Combat Systems group with a book-to-bill of 1.6:1 and in the Aerospace and Technologies segments, which each had a book-to-bill of 1.2:1. We ended the quarter with total backlog of $93.7 billion, up slightly from year-end and up 4% from a year ago. Our total estimated contract value, which includes options and IDIQ contracts, ended the quarter at approximately $134 billion, up 1.5% from year-end. Turning to our cash performance for the quarter. We had an expected slow start to the year, absent the delayed certification and entry into service of the G700 and continued G700 inventory build. So let's start with Technologies. We continue to see strong cash performance from that group in the quarter. As anticipated, Combat Systems and Marine Systems both built working capital in the quarter based on their unique mix of contract timing versus expected payments. Finally, moving to Aerospace. The lack of G700 deliveries drove us to use cash in the quarter. As a result, our free cash flow for the quarter was a negative $437 million. Since all of what I described is timing related, we still have an expectation for the year of a cash conversion rate around 100%. We expect most of the negative free cash flow to reverse in the second quarter, followed by substantially improving free cash flow in each of the third and fourth quarters. Now to discuss our capital deployment activities. Capital expenditures were $159 million, or 1.5% of sales in the quarter. Similar to last year, you should expect capital expenditures to increase in subsequent quarters throughout the year, as we anticipate spending between 2% and 2.5% of revenue on CapEx this year. Over 50% of that expected spend will be for infrastructure at our three shipyards as we continue to invest to support the Navy's submarine and shipbuilding plan. Also in the quarter, we paid $361 million in dividends and repurchased approximately 390,000 shares of stock for $105 million at just under $269 per share. When you add it all up, we ended the quarter with a cash balance of around $1 billion and a net debt position of $8.2 billion. Our net interest expense in the quarter was $82 million compared with $91 million for the same quarter last year. The reduction in interest expense was attributed to our lower debt balances. Finally, turning to income taxes. We had a 17.5% effective tax rate in the quarter, right in line with our full-year guidance, which reflects higher taxes on foreign earnings. Phebe, that concludes my remarks. I'll turn it back over to you.

Thanks, Kim. Now let me review the quarter in the context of the business segments and provide detailed color as appropriate. First, Aerospace. Aerospace did very well in the absence of the G700 delivery. It had revenue of $2.1 billion and operating earnings of $255 million with a 12.2% operating margin. Revenue is $192 million more than last year's first quarter, a 10.1% increase. To give you a little detail here, the increase was driven by an increase in new aircraft deliveries and an increase in services at both Gulfstream and Jet Aviation, partially offset by significantly lower special mission aircraft activity, which is always lumpy. The 24 deliveries in the quarter are fewer than planned but three more than the year ago quarter. The mix in the quarter favored large cabin and the 650 in particular, which helped both revenue and earnings. Operating earnings of $255 million are up $26 million over last year's first quarter, an 11.4% increase. Earnings on both new aircraft and aircraft services enjoyed good increases, offset in part by lower earnings on special mission, higher G&A and net R&D. While Gulfstream will continue to experience part shortages that cause significant out-of-station work, which is inherently less efficient, the supply chain is clearly improving and much more predictable. As is now apparent, we plan to deliver a considerable number of G700s in 2024, the first 20 to be delivered are fully built, and deliveries have begun. By the end of this month, the next seven to eight will be ready. We plan to deliver these 50 to 52 planes over the quarters in relatively even numbers, with improving margins quarter-over-quarter as we go along. The first one, what we call the lot 1, carries some cost and retrofit burden that will not affect subsequent aircraft deliveries. So expect margins in the second quarter to be similar to the first quarter with significant improvement in Q3 and Q4. Aerospace had a decent quarter from an orders perspective with a book-to-bill of 1.2:1 in dollar terms. Sales activity and customer interest is evident this quarter, but concerns over persistent inflation and monetary policy in the U.S., together with concerns about conflict in the Middle East, have slowed the consummation of transactions to some degree. It is also worth noting that a significant portion of the demand we see is fleet replenishment for corporations. These multi-aircraft deals usually proceed at a slower pace. The G800 flight test and certification program continues to progress well. The aircraft design, manufacturing and the overall program are very mature. We continue to target certification of G800 for nine months after the G700 certification, although I'm increasingly reluctant to give estimates about these things that are ultimately out of our control. In short, the Aerospace team had a good quarter. G700 FAA certification is in the rearview mirror, and we hope EASA certification is hard on its heels. And we expect nicely improving margins, particularly in the second half. Next, Combat Systems. Combat had revenue of $2.1 billion, up almost 20% over the year-ago quarter. Earnings of $282 million are up 15.1%. Margins at 13.4% are down 60 basis points over the year-ago quarter. It is interesting to observe that this very strong increase in revenue is in comparison to last year's first quarter, which enjoyed a 5% increase over '22. We saw increased revenue performance in each of the three businesses. The increase came from higher volume on new international tank programs, higher artillery program volume and higher volume on PIRANHA's programs and bridges. We also experienced very strong order performance. Orders in the quarter drove total backlog to $15.6 billion, up $1.5 billion from this time in the year-ago quarter. Demand for Combat Systems and products continues to increase, particularly in Europe and in some lines of business in the U.S. Orders for wheeled and tracked combat vehicles are up significantly, reflecting the heightened threat environment. In addition to several new combat vehicle starts, demand for Abrams continues as well. We've seen tank orders from new users, and a number of countries will be introducing Abrams into their combat fleets for the first time. Since Q1 last year, we have received almost $1 billion in orders from both U.S. allies through FMS and the U.S. Army. In the U.S., we are rapidly increasing ammunition production with the opening of our Texas facility, which will increase current 155-millimeter ammo capacity by 83%. As the year goes on, we will continue to work with our Army customer to further increase ammo capacity to meet their requirements. Turning to Marine Systems. Once again, our shipbuilding units are demonstrating impressive revenue growth. Let me repeat the recent history that I gave you last year at this time with respect to growth in this decade. The first quarter of 2020 was up 9.1% against Q1 of 2019; Q1 '21 was up 10.6% over Q1 '20; Q1 '22 was up 6.8% over Q1 '21; and Q1 '23 was up 12.9% over Q1 '22. Finally, this quarter at $3.3 billion is up 11.3% over Q1 '23. This is an impressive growth ramp by any standard. However, growth ramps of this character bring with them supply chain and operational issues that are challenging. This particular quarter's growth was almost exclusively Columbia-class construction. Operating earnings are $232 million in the quarter, up 10% from the year-ago quarter. Operating margin is basically the same as last year's quarter. We anticipate that this will improve as we progress through the year. As we have talked about in previous calls, the story at the marine group is efficiently managing the growth propelled by the U.S. Navy's need for ships, particularly submarines. As a labor-intensive heavy manufacturing industry, the shipbuilding industrial base was hit hard by the demographic impacts of COVID. This, coupled with a number of sole-source suppliers of highly complex components, has made it difficult for the industrial base to keep pace with increasing demand. The significant financial investments we have made in our shipyards over the last 12 years, particularly at Electric Boat, have mitigated the impact on us, but we are still hit by schedule and quality problems in the supply chain. Our job is to minimize the efficiency and schedule impacts of late material by increasing our throughput. And we are doing that each and every quarter. In Q1 alone, our productivity increased 11%, but there is more to do. Finally, the Navy's investment in the supply chain has helped and will continue to help as we move forward. For Technologies, we're off to a solid start. Revenue in the quarter of $3.2 billion is down less than 1% from the prior year but up 2% over the fourth quarter of last year, and modestly ahead of our expectation to the start of the year. Operating earnings of $295 million are consistent with last year, yielding a margin of 9.2%. As we have previously discussed, margins will continue to be driven by the mix of IT service activity and hardware volumes. The group received $4 billion in orders during the quarter for a book-to-bill ratio of 1.2:1. Both businesses experienced strong order activity, in GDIT's case, the highest book-to-bill since mid-2019. This led to a total backlog of $13.5 billion, an increase of over 5% from a year ago and a total estimated contract value of $42.7 billion. The story in Technologies is one of steady growth, particularly at GDIT and increasingly at Mission Systems as they transition from legacy programs to new programs and faster-growth lines of business. Both businesses have robust pipelines driven by their respective investments in different technologies. The group's continued focus on margin performance will result in sequential margin expansion throughout the year as they continue to build their backlog and grow. As you know, we never update guidance at this time of year. Apart from what I have already said about Aerospace, I will stick to that custom. We do, however, confirm the guidance we gave you at the end of last quarter, and we'll update it at midpoint of the year, as we typically do. This concludes my remarks with respect to what was, in many respects, a rewarding quarter. Let me now turn the call back to Nicole to take your questions.

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

And your first question comes from Scott Deuschle with Deutsche Bank.

Kim, can you clarify the G700 delivery expectation for the second quarter? Is it the 20 that are ready to go plus the 7 to 8 that will be ready at the end of this month?

So let me kind of tackle that. I alluded to it in my opening statement. But we have 50 to 52 airplanes that are going to deliver in about equal amounts of the 700 in the second through the fourth quarters. So think about it that way. So I think that will help you.

Okay. And then, Phebe, I was hoping you could spend a moment maybe talking about the growth that Combat Systems is currently seeing in Europe and perhaps how you expect that to trend over the coming quarters.

So the growth in Europe is clearly driven by the threat environment. We've seen increases in orders for combat, wheeled and tracked vehicles and significant bridge orders. We're also seeing increased orders coming out of various countries in Europe for Abrams through the FMS process. So we see that demand signal continuing until the threat environment, frankly, improves.

We will take our next question from Seth Seifman with JPMorgan.

Looking to marine. When we think about the expectation for the profit margin for the year and kind of where we started, are there kind of visible milestones that you see through the remainder of the year that bring that number higher? Or is it a change in mix? Or what drives the underlying margin improvement through the year?

So two things. One is the increase in productivity at each of the shipyards, and we see that and we've been seeing that for the last few quarters. And it's also fewer disruptions from the supply chain. So those are the two primary factors.

Sure. From what we discussed, you indicated there are several obstacles to demand at Gulfstream related to monetary policy and geopolitical factors. To confirm the expectation of 160 deliveries this year and how the backlog will evolve, it's anticipated that this figure is quite sustainable and could potentially increase in the coming years.

So let me clarify a bit. I don't see concerns about inflation or monetary policy impacting demand. It really is just impacting the time from the initiation of a potential interest to the closure of an order, which is also impacted somewhat by large fleet airplane orders from corporate customers. So think about it that way, more of a timing issue with the completion of the deals and not a headwind to overall demand. So I think that's an important nuance. And we're still sticking to our delivery guidance for the year. And I think on a going-forward basis, as we've intimated before, we see that those deliveries increasing over time.

And we will take our next question from Robert Stallard with Vertical Research.

Phebe, I was wondering if you could comment on the recently passed or soon to be signed supplemental and what implications that could have for the combat business, but also on the submarine side, what sort of additional funding could come from the U.S. Navy?

So let me take them in the inverse order. On the submarine side, the preponderance of the funding in the supplemental is to help stabilize the industrial base, ensuring that we continue to drive order activity on a consistent and repeatable basis. So that is really on the submarine side. In combat, I think you can see there's a fair amount of ammo funding, and we had fully anticipated that.

Okay. And then just secondly, I was wondering if you could give us an update on the AJAX program in the U.K.

So it is proceeding extremely well through test, continue to work with that customer, but they are very pleased with the performance of the vehicle.

And we will take our next question from Sheila Kahyaoglu with Jefferies.

I wanted to ask about Aerospace, and I apologize for putting you on the spot with the mental math. Last quarter, you mentioned the G700 profit contribution being around 25%. Considering the Q1 performance, which had a 12.1% margin, it suggests there may be a slowdown in the underlying Aerospace business since the G700 is estimated to come in at 50 units. How should we view the mix changes throughout the year for Aerospace?

Let's discuss the first part of that question. I don't believe we've ever revealed the margin for a specific airplane, and we haven’t done so here either. It's difficult to attribute revenue and earnings in any given quarter to one specific airplane, so it's important to view it comprehensively. We haven't noticed any significant changes in the mix throughout the year, and we'll conduct a thorough review in Q2. For now, we are maintaining our expectations regarding mix, earnings, margin, and revenue. Overall, I would say we're off to a good start and are optimistic about the outlook for the remainder of the year.

Can we assume that G700 is accretive to the 15% full year guidance?

Consider this perspective: this program is expected to be quite profitable. However, as I mentioned earlier, the initial batch of around 20 will incur extra costs, which we will see primarily in Q2. We anticipate an increase in revenue of approximately $1 billion to $1.1 billion and earnings of about $100 million to $110 million in Q2, with positive progress following that. This is influenced by various factors in our Aerospace business that affect margins.

And we will take our next question from David Strauss with Barclays.

Phebe, regarding Rob's question about the supplemental funding and the submarine industrial base, there is indeed funding available. It appears there is a significant amount in the base budget. Currently, you are investing additional capital expenditure that you will ultimately recoup through working capital and profit. How does this large sum reflect in your numbers as we consider the next couple of years?

So for the supply chain support, it has minimal impact on us. It's, however, extremely important because the stabilization of the supply chain is critical to the resumption of full cadence on Virginia and the increased cadence on Columbia. So funding is also robust for submarines. We've got one we projected in '25. And then it would be extremely helpful to get a full ship set of Virginias also appropriated because that, again, helps stabilize the industrial base with repeatable revenue that they can plan around.

Okay. Last quarter, you made some more kind of positive comments regarding the potential for share repurchase to step up. Obviously, you did a little bit this quarter, but not that much. How are you thinking about that now? Did that have to do with the fact that you ended up burning cash in Q1? Just how you're thinking about share repo and the balance sheet from here.

So the way we think about share repurchases, and this will be true going forward, is really in the regular order. Recall what we were facing in Q1. And that was we were looking down the throat of a potential, and at some point looked very likely, government shutdown. And so I think that prudence and conservatism in the face of that kind of uncertainty is really key. But the cash performance for the remainder of the year is going to be very strong, and we will act accordingly.

And we will take our next question from Noah Poponak with Goldman Sachs.

Phebe, what's the framework for the pace of G700 deliveries beyond this year compared to this year? Not asking for quarterly numbers or anything like that, but just given this year's had some abnormalities compared to a recurring airplane. And then, Kim, just what's the updated view on free cash flow to net income conversion for the year?

Well, so let me talk about 700. We never, except I think, on one or two occasions about five, six years ago, give the future year expectations. But 700 is a very, very successful program, and it will continue to execute well. I'll turn it over to Kim on cash.

On cash. Thank you, Phebe. So with respect to cash and the expectation, we still anticipate achieving about 100% of free cash flow conversion in 2024. We had expected the first quarter to be negative even before considering the fact that we didn't deliver any G700. So we had planned for a negative free cash flow in the first quarter, and that was mostly driven by some contract timing in the Combat Systems segment and some in the Marine Systems segment. But we expect that most of that negative cash will reverse in the second quarter with a stronger third quarter and then a steeper ramp in the fourth quarter.

We will take our next question from Myles Walton with Wolfe Research.

Phebe, could you comment on the margin expansion expected at Combat Systems as we progress through the year? I believe it should be around 80 to 100 basis points on average year-on-year for the remainder of the year. Additionally, could you explain the underlying dynamics regarding the volume and why we didn't see a greater drop-through margin in the first quarter?

What influenced margins in the first quarter were two factors: the shift from older legacy programs, especially in the vehicle sector in the U.S., to the introduction of new vehicle programs, and a considerable portion of the revenue growth resulted from facilities investments, which typically have a lower margin than production. Both of these factors are expected to reverse over the year, leading to an increase in combat margins. We anticipate quarter-over-quarter improvements, noting that this is a high operating leverage group that should perform well.

Okay. And one clarification on Gulfstream's backlog, if I could. I think that there were some adjustments downward in the backlog. Were those cancellations or ForEx, maybe six large jet cancellations or thereabouts?

I don't think that's the way to look at it. But why don't Nicole get back to you on that? But we didn't have any particular notable cancellations. So let us unpack that one with you a little later.

We will take our next question from Ron Epstein with Bank of America.

So Phebe, with the increased demand on munitions and so on and so forth, I mean, what are you doing to mitigate any of the issues that could arise from growth in those markets, just like we've seen in the Navy markets given all the demand and growth? There's been supply chain issues. Are you expecting...

Yes. So in the combat world, it's a little bit more of a robust supply chain in general that we typically have not had difficulty with, typically. We know our priority. The suppliers who could conceivably cause issues, and we've been working with them to ensure that they can manage this growth. But we're pretty comfortable that we can execute the growth. Our focus is really on operations and execution. And those will be the two key drivers of the profitability in that group.

Got it. Got it. And then maybe back to the kind of the naval side of the house and the supply chain. Could you give us any color on where there are actual weaknesses in the supply chain where investment has to be made?

In terms of single-source suppliers who are essential, the Navy has placed significant emphasis on those specific products and items in the supply chain. They have clearly communicated where some challenges may exist, and I think it's important to view it this way. We believe that collaborating with the Navy will enhance the stability of that supply chain, as they currently represent a critical factor for Electric Boat.

And we will take our next question from Doug Harned with Bernstein.

On marine, the Navy recently described some shipbuilding delays really across programs. And the one that really stood out was Columbia-class delays reported on the turbines and the bow. Can you give us a sense of changes you've seen in schedule that affect you kind of across the program base and particularly on Columbia?

So I think you've articulated what the Navy has said. I will tell you, our throughput and productivity has been strong on Columbia. It enjoys the highest national security priority. So we have done pretty well on Columbia and are increasing our throughput on Columbia. So then it's really those pacing items that are out there. And we're working with our Navy customer to see if there are additional things we can do to recover some schedule and if there are any workarounds. But this is going to be a bit of a slog for the supply chain.

Inflation has significantly impacted shipbuilding costs in recent years, leading to increased pricing on new contracts. As you look ahead in the budget, is there a concern that the Navy's budget will be able to accommodate the potential inflation increases associated with the ongoing ramp-up in shipbuilding?

Yes. So I think you've known over the years, I tend not to comment on individual service budgeting. But inflation certainly has been a factor. And to the extent that we can increase throughput to offset some of that, we will. But the Navy is well aware of the inflation impact and I think is working hard with the whole shipbuilding industrial base to adjust some of that.

And we will take our next question from Kristine Liwag with Morgan Stanley.

Phebe, following up on the marine question. In addition to the delay in the Columbia class, the DoD did request one less Virginia class for the fiscal year '25 budget request. So if we take all this into perspective, can you provide some context on what this means for marine revenue growth over the next few years? And does the margin with a 7 handle on it, is that more the new norm for this business?

So let me address that in the inverse order. Margins will be improving at our shipyards. We have every expectation all of our shipyards, NASSCO, Bath and Electric Boat. One of the things, as we've talked frequently about, is the margin impact of quality and schedule problems coming out of the supply chain. And as the supply chain stabilizes, that will help as well. And what was your first part of your question?

The revenue cadence, including the just one Virginia class for fiscal year '25.

It has no short-term impact on Electric Boat since we have ample work ahead. There may be an effect in the longer term beyond our planning horizon. The crucial point is securing additional funding for the ship set. The long lead materials for Virginia are essential to the supply chain. Ensuring we receive a complete second Virginia ship set, allowing us to purchase two per year, is vital for the overall health of both the submarine and industrial sectors.

And we will take our next question from Ken Herbert with RBC.

If we look, Phebe, at your comments around timing in Gulfstream, is it still fair to assume that you should be looking at a book-to-bill at one or greater for Gulfstream in '24?

It's a solid planning assumption and reflects our internal strategy. However, we need to see how we perform as we begin to significantly increase production and deliveries. Overall, it's a good approach to our planning.

Okay. Great. And just a clarification for Kim. The comments sound like the free cash flow ramp really sort of accelerates in the second half of the year. But with all the 700 deliveries expected this quarter, free cash flow should be positive in the second quarter, correct?

Yes. That's pretty much what you should assume.

And we will take our next question from Robert Spingarn with Melius Research.

Phebe, you mentioned recently that even though the aerospace supply chain is improving, your ramp this year could challenge that improvement. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

We are definitely seeing improvements in quality and schedule reliability. However, we still have a significant amount of out-of-station work, which affects the profitability and margins of the airplanes involved. While we are optimistic that we can maintain progress, there are still challenges to our margins.

Okay. And then also, I think you commented you had good bookings in Aerospace in the quarter, reflecting strong demand. But I think you've said the U.S. has been very strong. How is aircraft demand elsewhere in the world?

So there's no real change, I think, from the previous quarters, U.S. corporations, private and public, high-net-worth individuals, both U.S. and outside the U.S. So no real changes, no real surprises. Sort of the typical customer base that we see is I think the way you should think about it.

And we will take our next question from Peter Arment with Baird.

Phebe, the Army wants to reach 100,000 155 shells by, I think, October 2025. Can you update us on how your ramp is going? You've discussed that, that supply chain is a little more robust.

Yes. So our ramp there is more about increasing the facilities that we have. And as I noted in my remarks, the opening of our Texas facility, which we worked very, very hard to expedite and frankly did it in almost record time, was very important because it increased the throughput and the productivity of the number of shells by 83%. So we're on track with the Army to get where we need to be, and our objective is to move even faster. And so far, we have been. But the Army has been a critical and extremely important partner here in what is really a national security imperative. Yes. And then just if you could make any comments on the G280 program just given the conflict that's going on in the Middle East. So we had anticipated the impacts on the 280 in our guidance too, but I will tell you that they are doing quite well and are slightly ahead of our schedule. We're still sticking to our deliveries, but I think it's notable that they're managing pretty well in this tough environment.

And we will take our next question from Cai von Rumohr with TD Cowen.

Good quarter.

Thanks, Cai.

So could you update us on the status of the G400? How is it doing? And is it fair to assume that it might have a gap of approximately 12 months between its certification and that of the G800?

I believe I mentioned last quarter that I'm no longer in a position to predict processes over which we have limited control. In the past, we've attempted to provide you with indicators regarding our timelines. Therefore, I'm stepping back from detailed predictions. However, I can say that the program is performing exceptionally well. It will gain momentum in the third quarter, and I anticipate that we will be operating a very mature aircraft.

Excellent. And then your R&D was up a fair amount in the first quarter. Could you give us some color on the pattern of the R&D at Gulfstream this year and looking forward? How should we think about that?

Well, pretty much steady as she goes, particularly this year. We've got a number of, as you know, programs in the certification process. And so I'd see that at least through this year is pretty consistent. No real surprise this year, steady as she goes.

And we will take our next question from Jason Gursky with Citigroup.

Phebe, I wanted to just quickly go back to your comments on Aerospace and what, I guess, you described as an elongation of your sales cycle. Maybe you could just talk a little bit about the overall size of the pipeline and how that is evolving. I understand things are taking longer to close, but I'd also be kind of curious to know whether there are an increasing number of people that are interested.

So the pipeline remains robust. And I look to that as encouraging, a good sign. It's been that way for a while. People want our airplanes, and that's driving demand.

Okay. Great. The metrics sound positive. I have a quick question for Technologies regarding artificial intelligence and the adoption trends you're observing with your customers. How do you envision this impacting your business moving forward?

We have been investing in AI to support our customers, especially at GDIT and to some extent at Mission Systems. We are working closely with our customers as they define what is possible for them with AI. There are governance challenges involved, but as we become more sophisticated in tailoring AI solutions, our customers are likely to feel more comfortable, which should ultimately lead to increased revenue. However, I haven't observed much of a change yet, because the government is more cautious compared to other industries. This cautiousness is understandable and is likely true across our entire business.

Our final question today comes from Gavin Parsons with UBS.

Phebe, you highlighted the stronger second half Aerospace margins that's a more normal volume and G700 production. Is that more of an appropriate starting point for 2025 than the full year 15%?

Nice try. So look, yes, I think once you get through the first lot, our performance from a margin standpoint will continue to improve. And you'll see that, third quarter will be significantly better than second quarter, and fourth quarter will be even better still. But we will update you on our regular order. We kind of keep our discipline, as you well know, around updating guidance, and I think that that's appropriate.

I think right now, we're just focused. Given the steep ramp in the second half of the year, we're really focusing on trying to hit that mark at this point in time.

And we should get there.

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

And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call, and we thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.