Good morning, and welcome, everyone. Thank you for joining today's quarterly earnings conference call.

With me today are John Baylouny, our President and CEO, and Mike Dippold, our CFO. They'll discuss our strategy, operational highlights, financial results, and outlook.

Today's call is being webcast on the Investor Relations section of the website, where you can also find the earnings release and supplemental presentation. Management may also make forward-looking statements during the call regarding future events, future trends, and the anticipated future performance of the company.

We caution you that such statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors.

For full discussion of these risk factors, please refer to our latest Form 10-K and our other SEC filings. We undertake no obligation, other than as may be required by law, to update any of the forward-looking statements made on this call.

During this call, management will also discuss non-GAAP financial measures, which we believe provide useful information for investors. These non-GAAP measures should not be evaluated in isolation or as a substitute for GAAP performance measures.

You can find a reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures discussed on this call in our earnings release. With that, I will turn the call over to John.

John?

Thank you, Steve, and welcome, everyone. We appreciate you joining us to discuss our first quarter 2026 results.

This morning, we're pleased to report strong quarterly results and an excellent start to 2026. The team's steadfast execution is translating into tangible financial outperformance, as results clearly demonstrate.

Revenue for the first quarter was up 6% year-over-year. Adjusted EBITDA grew 28% year-over-year, allowing us to deliver adjusted diluted EPS of 26 cents a share.

Importantly, we're delivering these results while maintaining healthy levels of organic investment in R&D and capital expenditures. This disciplined approach reflects our commitment to meeting both current and future customer needs as we continue to build on our foundation of growth.

Let me share a few performance highlights from the quarter. Robust customer demand drove our 17th consecutive book-to-bill of at least 1 times revenue, bolstering our funded backlog to new company records and enhancing visibility and growth for the full year.

That momentum, coupled with favorable material receipt timing, accelerated revenue growth and enabled outperformance against our expectations in Q1. Increasing volume, favorable program mix, and solid operational execution unlocked higher profitability and margin expansion.

Overall, the strength delivered in the first quarter gives us confidence to raise our expected growth and profitability for the full year. Our differentiated technology portfolio and exceptional people are foundational to these results.

I want to thank the entire team for their dedication and unwavering commitment to our customers, partners, and shareholders. The global threat environment remains elevated, with limited signs of near-term easing.

Against that dynamic backdrop, our focus remains on delivering differentiated technologies that drive overmatch and mission success for our customers. Our customers are operating with the clarity of a full year appropriations for fiscal year '26.

Additionally, there are indications that supplemental defense funding enacted through last summer's reconciliation package will be deployed this fiscal year, accelerating the procurement of critical capabilities. The overall funding and budget environment continues to be favorable.

Last month, the administration released its fiscal year '27 budget request, proposing $1.5 trillion in total defense spending. As usual, Congress will consider and negotiate the final funding allocations.

Importantly, we remain strongly aligned with our customers' spending priorities, including shipbuilding and industrial base resiliency, layered air and missile defense, counter-UAS, unmanned systems, space, and missile replenishment. Furthermore, the recent tensions in the Middle East, along with ongoing conflict in Ukraine, continue to reinforce several key lessons shaping requirements and budgets.

First, missiles and one-way drones are now so widespread that attacks that were once anomalous are expected at scale and are proliferating. This reality is fundamentally reshaping requirements and the nature of warfare.

Layered air defense and counter-UAS are no longer optional; they are now required. Second, adversaries are increasingly targeting large radars and other high-value assets to degrade infrastructure, sensing, and defensive capabilities to quickly create exploitable vulnerabilities.

This is accelerating the shift towards distributed, resilient, and modular sensing and battle management architectures that can be rapidly proliferated, replaced, and scaled. We are already seeing this trend in space, with the shift from geosynchronous to low Earth orbit satellites, and is also beginning to manifest in the ground and naval arenas, where unmanned vessels can be utilized as sensor- and effector-equipped perimeters deployed around manned platforms.

Third, volume, scalability, and effector cost symmetry are essential to counter growing threats. Magazine depth and munition stockpiles are a key factor in operational endurance.

We're supporting production ramps across several weapon systems, advancing seeker capabilities for improved sensing on next-generation missile platforms, and introducing lower-cost seekers to enable more symmetric countermeasures. Each of these trends represents a fundamental shift and plays directly to DRS's strengths.

DRS is a market leader in tactical radars, and our technology continues to deliver significant operational and mission impact. Additionally, our tactical radars continue to see immense global demand, and we are aggressively increasing throughput and production capacity to satisfy that appetite.

Recent hostilities have again demonstrated that force protection cannot be confined to fixed sites; it must also be embedded in maneuver units and proliferated at scale. Our force protection solutions span multiple domains.

In the quarter, we received a $533 million production contract IDIQ with the Distributed Aperture Infrared Countermeasure system, or DAIRCM, for aircraft survivability. DAIRCM combines both missile warning and infrared countermeasures into one system and leverages multiple sensors to provide a 360-degree threat picture, each with a laser director to defeat increasingly capable missiles that threaten aircraft.

As recent operations have demonstrated, both rotary and fixed-wing platforms without this capability are vulnerable in contested airspace. Across our portfolio, our capabilities are modular and platform-agnostic, optimized for size, weight, power, and cost to meet customers' specific needs.

Let me illustrate that with a few examples. We can deploy power and propulsion technologies on a platform as compact as a medium unmanned surface vessel and scale all the way to the Columbia-class submarine.

That modularity approach is one we strongly advocate for as the Navy considers future surface combatant platforms. Similarly, our infrared sensing capabilities span deployment from attritable Class 1 drones to the most sophisticated ground combat vehicles.

Because our technologies are domain-agnostic, that same sensing capability can deploy across ground, air, sea, and space. We also stand to benefit as customers accelerate modernization and expand production rates, a tailwind evident throughout our portfolio.

We're investing in both research and development and capital against that broader demand. Overall, we view these trends as part of an enduring structural shift, and they align directly with our core strengths.

The business continues to perform well, and we remain focused on three key strategic priorities: innovation, growth, and execution. The diversity and differentiation of our portfolio creates multiple growth avenues.

Our increased investment in innovation is evident through the accelerated pace of procurement-ready prototypes that meet the needs of our customers. Those capabilities include next-generation multi-domain counter-UAS solutions, key technologies underpinning next-generation command and control architectures, and cutting-edge space sensing capabilities, among others.

In the quarter, we demonstrated counter-UAS mission execution from both unmanned ground and unmanned naval platforms, further validating a platform-agnostic approach where our enabling technologies can be integrated into virtually any platform. We also released THOR, a tactical high-performance embedded computing product.

THOR is an open architecture, rugged chassis designed to deliver high-density processing at the tactical edge, with native support for AI-enabled operations and multi-sensor data fusion. We remain deeply committed to a truly open architecture approach, giving our customers the flexibility to deploy best-of-breed hardware and software solutions not locked to a single provider.

Our approach is open, flexible, modular, and affordable, enabling customers to scale sustainably. Our capabilities extend beyond hardware into integration and software.

We apply the same open and modular philosophy to software as we do hardware. Our platform-level operating system SageCore accelerates data fusion across disparate sensor and effector solutions, converting that data into actionable intelligence for improved and faster decision-making.

SageCore is a key component of the integrated counter-UAS solution being tested with our customers today. Our innovation and growth initiatives are backstopped by customer trust earned through consistent execution.

As we add new efforts to the portfolio, including the SDA Tracking Layer Tranche 3 program, we're applying the same operational rigor that guides execution across the company. Our customers operate in some of the most demanding and consequential environments in the world, and earning their trust requires more than great technology; it requires consistent, reliable delivery and partnership.

We take that mandate seriously, and our ultimate measure of success is ensuring that our customers have what they need when they need it. We believe that solid execution enables growth, and that philosophy is embedded in everything that we do.

With that, I'll turn it over to Mike to walk through the financials.

Thanks, John. John covered the strategic backdrop and why our portfolio remains well positioned.

Let me walk through first quarter results by key metric and then discuss our revised 2026 outlook. Overall, our first quarter results were well above the framework we provided on our last call, as both revenue and profitability came in stronger than expected.

Revenue in the first quarter was $846 million, up 6% year-over-year. Quarterly revenue exceeded expectations on favorable receipt timing, and the year-over-year growth came from programs related to tactical radars, infrared sensing, and electric power and propulsion.

The strong contribution from tactical radars and infrared sensing was evident in the increased ASC segment revenue. In IMS, Q1 revenue growth was more modest, as electric power and propulsion strength was offset by a tough compare in force protection programs, mostly attributed to timing.

Moving to profitability, adjusted EBITDA was $105 million in the first quarter, representing year-over-year growth of 28%. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 12.4%, reflecting 210 basis points of year-over-year margin expansion.

The increased adjusted EBITDA and margin came from strong program execution across the business, favorable mix, and operational leverage from higher volume. Shifting to the segment view, in Q1, ASC adjusted EBITDA was up 48%, with margin expanding by 290 basis points, reflecting improved execution, better mix, and operational leverage.

For IMS, adjusted EBITDA growth of 8% outpaced the top line, with margin expanding 90 basis points, driven by strong program execution, including on the Columbia-class. Turning to the bottom line metrics, first quarter net earnings were $62 million and diluted EPS was 23 cents a share, up 24% and 21% respectively.

Our adjusted net earnings of $69 million and adjusted diluted EPS of 26 cents a share were up 28% and 30% respectively. The favorable year-over-year compares were driven primarily by strong operating profitability and lower net interest expense.

Moving to free cash flow, free cash flow in the quarter reflected typical seasonality with a modest outflow. However, relative performance improved meaningfully versus last year.

Higher profitability, better working capital management, and solid program execution drove the improvement. We are only one quarter into the year.

Our strong start to that year gives us confidence to increase our full-year outlook across metrics. We are increasing our range for revenue to $3.9 billion to $3.975 billion, implying strong year-over-year organic revenue growth of 7% to 9%.

Our funded backlog continues to provide healthy visibility into growth. That said, the timing and level of material receipts, pace of program execution, and the capture of book-to-bill revenue remain as the primary drivers behind the variability in the range.

Additionally, we are increasing the range of adjusted EBITDA to between $515 million and $530 million, which also assumes an improved margin expectation over our prior guide. As we do not provide granular guidance on our segments, but to help with your modeling, let me provide some directional color.

We continue to expect strong revenue growth from both our segments. Adjusted EBITDA dollar growth is expected across both segments, but the margin improvement over the as-reported 2025 will come from IMS.

Stronger operational execution combined with reduced assumptions for net interest expense is flowing through to our bottom-line metrics. We are now projecting adjusted diluted EPS to be in the $1.26 to $1.30 per share range.

Our underlying assumptions for tax rate and diluted share count for the year remain unchanged at 18.5% and 269 million respectively. We are now targeting free cash flow generation at approximately 75% of adjusted net earnings for the year.

Despite the lighter capital expenditures in the quarter, we still expect increased capital investment for the balance of the year. The slight revision to our free cash flow conversion for the year is largely driven by increased assumptions for working capital investment to fund future growth.

Finally, let me give you some color on our current expectations for the second quarter. We expect revenue to trend around $900 million and adjusted EBITDA margin should be comparable to Q1 in the mid-12% range.

Additionally, we expect to be modestly free cash flow positive in the quarter, alleviating some of the cash generation load from the second half. Let me turn the call back over to John for closing remarks.

Thanks, Mike. I want to recognize our team for the dedication and mission focus they bring every day in support of our customers and the nation's most important security priorities.

Our team understands the stakes. Our nation is at war, and our service members are counting on the technology and products that we deliver.

That's why we're operating on a wartime footing across the company. Our first quarter performance, along with the progress we've made over the last several years, highlights the quality of our portfolio and validates the strategy we've been executing.

We're starting this year from a position of strength, and we intend to build on that momentum, driving meaningful growth in the near term while continuing to develop the longer-horizon opportunities that will shape the next phase of DRS. We're investing in innovation and capacity at the moment when the demand for these capabilities is both urgent and enduring.

Looking forward, our priority is clear: provide differentiated, next-generation solutions with speed, quality, and the ability to scale so we can deliver the consistent performance our customers and shareholders have come to expect. With that, we're happy to take your questions.

Thanks. Good morning, John, Mike, Steve.

Nice results. Hey, John, maybe just to kick things off at a high level, we've gotten a lot of materials out from the budget and request.

Obviously, you mentioned the reconciliation bill and opportunities there. When you look across kind of some of those details on the fiscal '27 request, anything that jumps out at you, whether the opportunities that you're seeing for DRS in space or force protection, or maybe just want to comment on broadly the portfolio?

Thanks.

Thanks, Peter. Appreciate the question.

First, the budget request represents a very high priority for defense in the United States, the $1.5 trillion. The budget is very clearly rich with opportunity and with urgency, as you probably know.

Obviously, Congress will need to weigh in on the overall budget and the budget level. What I want to highlight, though, is that the most important element to that budget is really what's inside it, and the prioritization of the elements that are in there really align very nicely with DRS's capabilities.

For instance, shipbuilding, air and missile defense, counter-UAS, unmanned, space and missiles are all very prevalent in the budget. We see a huge alignment between where we are and where that budget is.

Each of those elements is growing very quickly. Again, we'll have to see what Congress does with the overall funding levels, but we're encouraged by the prioritization that's inside that budget.

Got it. Then just quickly, Mike, as a follow-up, CapEx to start the year started a little light.

Any change or just how should we think about kind of cadence of CapEx for the year? Thanks again.

I would say the light CapEx in Q1, Peter, was attributed to timing. You're going to see that pick up over the subsequent quarters.

As we laid out in our last call, kind of that 5% of sales threshold is where we anticipate being at the end of the year. No real change, just kind of ramping up as we go across the year.

Hey, guys. This is Alex on for Seth today.

Hey, Alex.

Hey, Alex. Hey.

Wanted to ask kind of on the IMS margin, specifically. It got off to a good start here in Q1 at a 14.6%.

Comes off of Q4 where if you kind of adjust out that one-timer, kind of ends up in the high teens range. Curious kind of if you guys could elaborate a little bit more on the recent momentum you've been seeing with IMS profitability.

Has there been any sort of unlock with respect to maybe the Columbia-class program specifically? I know you guys talked about the IMS margin expansion kind of expected to drive the overall company's margin expansion for the rest of the year.

Curious if you guys could kind of elaborate a little bit more on that.

Sure, I'll take that, Alex, and thanks for the question. The IMS margins were notably strong.

Really execution-based across the segment, but the largest contributor being Columbia-class. We're continuing to see strong execution on that program.

The team is performing very well, and that continues to be the catalyst for the margin expansion within the segment. More broadly than that, we did see program-level efficiency throughout the segment.

We've managed costs well. I think that's what's driving the EBITDA growth.

I think you should think about this segment being kind of in this range as we progress throughout the course of the year. I think this is a good kind of revised baseline for the segment.

Great. That's very helpful.

Then maybe kind of for this next question, focus a little bit more on ASC. Certainly appreciate you guys are kind of at a record backlog level, and the overall company's book-to-bill has been one time or greater for the past 17 quarters.

If we kind of look at the book-to-bill specific for ASC over the past couple quarters, it looks like it's dipped below one time. Kind of curious if you guys can maybe provide a quick update on what you're seeing in the order environment there.

I wouldn't be too overly concerned with the kind of the quarterly trends here that you saw last quarter and now this quarter from an ASC perspective. If you kind of zoom out a little bit on the time period, the segment over the last 12 months is right around 1 to 1.

I think more importantly, as John kind of went through on the call, we continue to see solid demand signals from the customer. Our tactical radars are continuing to see global demand and how they're important in the air defense domain.

John mentioned a $500 million DAIRCM IDIQ contract that we haven't started to see order flow come through on. If you couple that with some of the next-gen sensing programs where we have just recently been awarded some IDIQ contracts, and also what's happening in space, I think the book-to-bill trend is one that's going to reverse pretty quickly in a favorable manner.

Got it. Thank you.

Hey, good morning, John, Mike, and Steve.

Morning. Morning, Andre.

I wanted to talk a bit more about capital deployment, and more specifically about what you guys are seeing on the M&A front. I know you talked last quarter about M&A being mainly focused on closing specific technology gaps.

Can you maybe talk about the current M&A pipeline with that context?

Sure. I was just pointing out, I think M&A focus last quarter was said to be mainly on closing technology gaps.

With that in context, can you maybe talk about what the pipeline currently looks like?

Andre, thanks for the question. We have a little bit of a gap in your question, but I think we got it.

Look, our primary focus for capital deployment really is, as we've talked about before, organic. We've spending more on IR&D, more on CapEx, focusing a lot on building capability inside the business.

That said, we are still looking for technology gap fulfillment and kind of tuck-ins in the M&A pipeline. That pipeline does span the gamut of capabilities from hardware to software, where we see areas of growing demand and growing a market pull, if you will, as well as aligning with gaps.

When I talk about gaps, I'm talking about areas where, if for want of a piece of technology, we could provide a solution to the customer. Those are the kinds of things that we're looking for.

Typically, we do a lot of partnerships for fulfilling those kind of gaps, but we look for them in the M&A market as well. Hopefully, that answers your question.

Yeah. No, that's definitely helpful.

I guess on that point, you mentioned the organic investments you're making, higher IRAD spend. I guess when you look at IRAD, what is most of your attention going towards?

If you could maybe provide a top three kind of areas in which you're looking to invest specifically through the balance of '26.

What I would tell you, our investment is definitely focused in areas of highest demand. When I say highest demand, I'm talking about growth, right?

If you go back to the budget request, you kind of see that shipbuilding, you're seeing missiles and we provide seekers for missiles, counter-UAS, where you're seeing kind of in the $14, $15 billion in the request for counter-UAS. Our investments are really well aligned to those growing demand: space, etc.

That's where we're putting our money.

Got it. That's very helpful.

Thanks, John. I appreciate the color.

Thanks, Andre.

Hi, good morning, John and Mike. Just my first question here.

The adjusted EBITDA margin improvement within ASC, is that partially being driven by improvement in germanium availability and supply? Is it being driven by any inflation cost escalators or renegotiations of contracts, or is it just more favorable mix of tactical radars and DAIRCMs and volume moving through the factory?

Austin, thanks for the question. I would say that the margin expansion, first and foremost, is driven by the favorable mix coming out of the tactical radar piece that we had and the demand we saw there.

Also, we're starting to see the operational leverage materialize as the IRAD wasn't a headwind to margin, so that certainly helped the margin expansion. The last point of the margin expansion is where you directed the question.

We've certainly had a better result on the margin side because of the raw material costing, especially germanium. That helped the segment outperform the prior year.

Okay. I think you guys said in your prepared remarks, you alluded to underwater platforms, or counter-UAS for underwater platforms.

Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Is that radar?

Is that sonar? Is that the tactical MHRs?

How should we think about that?

Austin, we were referring to unmanned surface vessels. What we've done is we've taken our counter-UAS mission equipment package, really kind of taken it off a tank and putting it on unmanned surface vessels and we put it on unmanned ground vehicles.

We believe that the future of warfare is increasingly going to be robotic. You're going to have unmanned platforms out in front protecting manned platforms.

What we've done is we put these on the ground, on the ground vehicle side, on the surface side, we put it at sea, and we demonstrated its capability. Again, there's a lot of money that the Navy will spend on unmanned surface vessels.

The money is in the reconciliation bill from '26. The question is what are they going to do with the unmanned surface vessels?

We believe that there's a market here for counter-UAS. That's why we went and did this demonstration as part of our IRAD to put that to sea.

I think really incredible capability. Our team really did a great job here.

If you look at some of the LinkedIn posts, you can see the pictures of that platform.

Great. That's very interesting.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. Really nice quarter and outlook there.

Thanks, John.

I was wondering if you could give us an update on the status of your radar operations in Israel, if you're seeing any disruptions there just from the conflict, and if there's any resolution to that as you move forward.

First and foremost, the backlog and the revenue there is rising pretty quickly. The demand for those capabilities is nearly insatiable.

We're investing in infrastructure to be able to increase production at a very high rate. The team is doing a great job of doing that.

Of course, some of our employees have to do some reserve duty and things like that, but that hasn't really impacted us in any material way. I think the team is doing a great job of increasing production, but the demand is there, for sure.

Got it. That's good to hear.

Thank you. Then, I was also wondering if you could talk about maybe your expectations for this fall and what happens if Congress changes hands.

Would you expect to see friction or vulnerability in any specific parts of the budget or overall? Where would you expect to see continued strength?

It's a great question. Look, I'm not going to kind of predict what happens to Congress or to the budget, but I would just go back to the point of what's in the budget.

I think that the prioritization of capability that we provide is clear in that budget request. No matter what happens on the Hill, no matter what happens with the funding level, first of all, there'll be an increase in budget, whether it goes to 1.5 or not is another question, but there'll still be an increase.

The more important point is that the focus of attention and the prioritization in that budget is aligned to DRS and aligned to our capabilities.

Got it. Thank you.

Good morning. Nice results and thanks for taking my question.

Given the strong defense demand environment across domains, how are you prioritizing resources internally given opportunities across naval, ground, space, and in the air? Where do you expect the most growth in 2026 and then to 2027?

It's a great question. We're really prioritizing our internal capital based on market growth rates.

The areas that we're focusing attention in, which I mentioned already, shipbuilding and air and missile defense, counter-UAS, unmanned, space, and missiles are all prioritized in our internal efforts. I think we're going to see growth in all of those areas of our portfolio.

I wouldn't want to guess as to which one's going to win, but we're certainly run a competition here. We'll see which one wins.

Great. Can you provide additional color on what drove improved execution operations in the quarter?

I'll take that. I'll say one of the major elements was what I alluded to earlier on the call, which is we've got a little bit more line of sight for what we've done from a raw material and supply perspective.

The material favorability that we've seen both from a timing perspective driving the revenue as well as from an execution perspective helped on the margin side. The other elements were really more attributed to the actual volume of revenue and the operational leverage driving that additional revenue and gross margin contribution down to the bottom line, as the IRAD spend and the G&A spend were much less of a headwind in Q1 of '26 than they were in the prior year.

Awesome. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. This is Alex Preston on for Ron today.

Thank you for taking the questions. If we could start maybe on shipbuilding, right, output continues to expand, at the same time outsourcing is expanding as well, and the supply base seems to be making, call it slow and steady progress.

Can you just update us maybe on any options or discussions to expand content or second sourcing, perhaps in addition to what's already in progress at Charleston?

Sure. Let me take that.

We are working with our customer on second sourcing the steam turbine generators for the submarine industrial base. We're seeing that, look, at the end of the day, the Navy deserves to have at least two sources for these capabilities.

Right now, they have one. We're starting to see some of the money move out of the reconciliation bill, out of OMB, to the customer set.

Some of that money's made its way to us already. This is one area of focus for us is to continue growing content to be a steam turbine generator second source.

Another area that I'll point you to is the Navy's focus on a battleship. One of the things that we believe is that whatever the Navy ends up trying to design in a next-generation surface combatant, they need to have an electric propulsion system.

That electric propulsion system is really necessary to be able to move power around within the ship. We know that those ships are going to have to fight from a longer distance because the anti-ship missiles have greater range today.

Having an electric propulsion system allows those ships to provide power to radars, for longer-range radars, for directed-energy weapons, for electronic warfare for a longer range. We believe that's the architecture of the future.

Going one step further than that, we believe that the Navy should be focused on a modular architecture, an architecture that would provide the capability from all the way from a battleship down through a cruiser to a destroyer or frigate or a corvette, even a USV, medium-sized USV. When the Navy would design an architecture once and then move forward.

We're investing in these components, power components, that would provide that flexibility for the Navy to basically build whatever they want to build once they've designed and tested that architecture. We're focused there on providing that capability for the Navy.

We think that the Navy is moving in that direction. We're helping them with some ideas here on how to do that.

We'll I think that's another big vector for us, and that's where we're investing some money.

Got it. Thank you.

Then, I know the budget's been brought up a couple times, but maybe to ask the question from a slightly different angle, I'm curious if you can talk maybe more specifically about your assumptions between the base and reconciliation budgets into '27. Right?

Some of the largest items in reconciliation seem maybe more relevant to DRS. I'm curious if reconciliation is sort of considered upside for you or in your plans, and maybe broadly how that's influencing your planning into '27 and beyond.

Thanks.

It's a great question, Alex. I think that, as you look at the bill, a lot of the reconciliation elements are things that are needed right now.

I think that the administration did that purposely. I would say that if you looked at the base budget, they have the same kind of prioritization that aligns well with DRS's capabilities.

Certainly our capabilities are applicable to the reconciliation portion of the bill, but very well aligned to the base bill as well. I would tell you that our plan does not include or it's not dependent on a $1.5 trillion budget.

We're not dependent on a $1.5 trillion budget. Whatever comes out of the Hill on the other side is going to have the same prioritization that base bill has, which aligns directly with the DRS's capabilities.

Got it. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

Appreciate it.

Welcome.

I want to thank everyone for joining today's call. This quarter underscores the momentum in our business: strong profitability, sustained organic growth, and a disciplined approach to investing.

We're off to a strong start in 2026. Our execution and visibility support raising our full-year outlook.

As I discussed earlier, we continue to see a rapid rate of change in the nature of warfare, and we believe the theme of capability proliferation is enduring and is driving the shift toward distributed, resilient, modular architectures that can be quickly replaced and scaled. DRS has a strategic advantage because we provide enabling technologies, and we pair that with deep integration expertise and growing software capabilities.

As our funded backlog reaches new company records, we continue to invest in innovation and capacity to execute on the clear multi-year demand in front of us. If you have any further follow-up questions, Steve and the team will be available after the call.

We appreciate your time and continued interest in DRS. We look forward to updating you again next quarter.

Thank you.

Thanks for your help today. Really appreciate it.

Thanks very much.

Great. Take care.

Thank you. Have a good one.

Bye now.