And as Chris mentioned, a great business model that enables them to kind of turn that factory pretty quick to deliver the radios to appropriate customers as needed based on critical demand and critical needs on the battlefield. At IMS, in terms of — I think the question was about EACs. And I would say that as we talked about in the prepared remarks, every segment performed better from a net EAC perspective. IMS was a part of that, significantly better performance than Q1 ’23. IMS is our longest cycle business and it takes a while to kind of turn those programs and the operations and get everything working through the system. I think IMS had great performance in the first quarter at 11.4%, working towards the guidance that we put out there for IMS for full year ’24.
And strong performance on their programs, I think really starting to stabilize both the operations in terms of rates, realizing some of the benefits of LHX NeXt as well as all the hard work that the sectors within IMS segment are doing to deliver on their programs. So we’re really excited about kind of the stabilization and the continued strong performance as we look out into the remaining quarters of ’24.
Operator: Our next question is from the line of Richard Safran with Seaport Research Partners. Please proceed with your question.
Richard Safran: Yeah. Good morning. Chris, Ken, Mark, how are you doing? So I wanted to ask two things about Stand-in Attack. It was an opportunity for you to be prime and correct me if I’m wrong, I think you decided to no bid. We’re hearing a lot more about too much risk being pushed to industry. One of your competitors just talked about adjusting for that in their bids. So I was curious about what your thinking is about bidding going forward and what’s the next opportunity for you to be prime.
Christopher Kubasik: Yeah. Thanks, Richard. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on the — on our bidding strategy. We talk about the bidding discipline. It’s been referenced a few times. There’s two things going on there. A lot of people in this industry spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to focus on a price-to-win strategy and hiring outside consultants and we kind of find that interesting, but irrelevant. So we’ve taken a different approach. What is our labor, what is our supply chain, what is our overhead, and what’s a reasonable fee? We add that up and that’s the bid we put in. And if it’s deemed too high, we move on and if it’s appropriate based on our past performance and capabilities, we book the order.
So that’s a little bit of a change here over the last year or so. But more importantly is bidding the right types of contracts. And I think in Stand-in Attack weapon, it was a fixed-price contract for development, again with fixed-priced options. And we will not bid any programs where we are asked to give a fixed price on an option for a product that’s yet to be developed. It’s just plain and simple, common sense. I think there are some people in the department that agree with me and maybe there are others that don’t, but you see what happens in most of these negative EACs across the industry, when you do a root cause corrective action, more times than not, it’s a bad contracting vehicle. Nobody is perfect and there are performance issues, but you cannot perform out of a bad contract.
And that’s what we’re trying to do. I guess, on next opportunities to prime, I mean, we have we — and again we take an approach where is the best approach, either be a merchant supplier, a subcontractor, or a prime based on our capabilities and what the customer needs. There’s Armed Overwatch. We’ve been successful there. We just got the delivery order three. So we’re up to 25 aircraft already. HADES, which is a big opportunity for the Army, it’s the high accuracy detection and exploitation system. It’s basically up to 14 aircraft. We’re bidding a global 6,500. This aligns clearly with our ISR and other capabilities. So that would be a big a big win for us. We have some maritime undersea ranges where we’ve primed and there is some follow-on opportunities, a bunch in classified space.
Usually get a space question for now, but I’ll just plug that we have no satellites in orbit at the date of merger. We launched six in the quarter, and we’ve been awarded 60 SATS as prime and there’s more in the pipeline. So those come to mind just off the top of my head. And of course, we have a lot of opportunities at Aerojet Rocketdyne. Those are follow-on, but those are not prime programs. So I guess SDA, maybe I was thinking SDA Tranche 3 for tracking. As you know, we’re the only company to have been awarded Tranche 0, 1, and 2. For a total of 38 satellites, we should get an RFP in the fourth quarter for Tranche 3 and that could be another 18 satellites. So hope that helps, Richard.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from the line of David Strauss with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Christopher Kubasik: Hey, David.
David Strauss: Wanted to ask about the performance in the quarter. I think well above your full year guidance. So how are you thinking about that? And then if you could just touch on two programs there in the press a lot where you’re a supplier F-35 Tier 3 and then how you’re [Technical Difficulty] rest of those? Thanks.
Kenneth Bedingfield: Yes. Thanks for the question, David. Appreciate it. I think you were breaking up a little bit, but I believe the question was about SAS performance in the quarter. And solid performance by the SAS team in the first quarter, 12.3% margin rate. And they are performing well on their programs. We talked a little bit about some of the drivers there, including maturing some of the development programs. And we also talked a little bit about the mix. And as space continues to grow, that’s a little more cost-plus mix. That could temper a little bit of the margins in the last three quarters of the year. But we did update guidance for SAS to approximately 12% on the margin rate. They were 12.3% in the first quarter some upside from EAC adjustments.
And as we saw strong program performance, you’ve got to kind of book that in the quarter. You does result in a higher booking rate as you move forward, but you do pick up some catch adjustment that flows through in that 90-day period versus the full year impact where that gets tempered a little bit. But we’re very confident in the team at SAS. And we’re confident in the guide that we put out there for approximately 12%. And I know the SAS team is out there working hard as we speak to try to figure out how to drive that up from there.
Christopher Kubasik: Yeah. And I think the second part of your question was F-35. Our production deliveries are tracking. We have a ramp coming up in production here starting next month. So we continue to have good relations with Lockheed. In fact, I was just talking to them yesterday. They’ll be starting to deliver aircraft, as you know, they’ll comment on that themselves. But as they start delivering aircraft, we’re going to have to ramp up even further and quicker and that’s our plan. We’ve made the investments in most of the infrastructure we need. So continued improvement month-over-month, quarter-over-quarter and it’s all about the core processor and that’s where the focus of the team is.
Operator: Our next question is from the line of Matt Akers with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
Matthew Akers: Yeah. Hey guys, good morning. Thanks for the question. Chris, I wonder if you could comment on the international pipeline at IMS. In particular, you mentioned the award in the quarter, but just curious if orders are kind of starting to move there.
Christopher Kubasik: Yeah. Thanks, Matt. I mean, at IMS, we did get the NATO electronic attack aircraft. And this — we were thinking back on this not that long ago. I mean this is something about eight years ago, nine years ago, we talked about disrupting the market and I always give the space example, but it feels like we pretty much invented and created this bizjet ISR market. We have over 50 bizjet orders in the last eight or nine years on five different platforms. So we have this one opportunity that I mentioned in Europe, NATO country. There is some longer-term opportunities kind of in the Mid-East, these things take a year or two to get booked. So you know the bizjet market for electronic attack, ISR, whatever capabilities are still out there.
There’s a huge opportunity in the Far East that on our third bid relative to being down-selected. So that could be a couple of billion dollars in 2025. So very excited about that. Armed Overwatch, we’re starting to get interest from international customers. Once we start making deliveries later this year, early next year, I think that market is going to pick up from the aircraft side. We still have some C-130 capabilities that I believe have some international opportunities. Maritime, we’re doing a lot of work with Australia. So we continue to see opportunities there as well. Viper Shield is actually out of the SAS, but great capability on F-16 EW. So I see that growing as well. And then, of course, WESCAM with the turrets that’s just a high growth market with opportunities pretty much all over the globe.
Kenneth Bedingfield: Yeah, Chris, maybe I’ll just add real quick onto that in terms of Armed Overwatch beyond bizjet, and at IMS, we did get a delivery order three on that program for nine aircraft, I think bringing the total order to 25. And to your comments, I think, as that program matures gives us greater confidence in the international opportunities for that aircraft, so looking to the building confidence on that one.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Sheila Kahyaoglu with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.
Sheila Kahyaoglu: Good morning, Chris and Ken. Thank you. In the past, you guys have talked about revenue synergies. There are a lot of discussions today focused on LHX NeXt, which is clearly great because your profit was up over 20%. So Chris, you mentioned Taiwan and you won a bid over a 20-year incumbent. Maybe is there any way to think about potential share gains and investment, what it means for the revenue top line outlook over the next few years? I know you laid out mid-single-digit targets, but how do we think about your revenue growth and market share gains?
Christopher Kubasik: Yeah. Thanks, Sheila. You know, we’re being selective in where we invest and bid. And if I look at the different domains, I think space is a perfect example where we were absolutely taking market share. And as I said earlier, we’ve been awarded 60 satellites as a prime just since the merger, including 38 for SDA tracking alone. And there’s an — it’s a hot market, but every couple of weeks or months, you can pick up a paper and see there is one less company in this market, a lot of SPACs, a lot of companies are withdrawing from that market. And we take that as a sign of our success. We’re making money and we’ve disrupted the market. So I feel really good about what we’ve done in space. The airborne domain, I think it’s really going to be more with what I referenced with the business jets, maybe Armed Overwatch to a lesser degree, where again we’re filling in gaps and replacing long-term incumbents or giving them different platforms with better capability for the missions that they want.
Our maritime work on the undersea ranges is world-class. Again, you go back six years, we had no work in that regard and we found an opportunity to unseat a long-term 40-year incumbent and came up with a different solution. And it’s been well-received around the globe as an example. We’ve talked historically about our torpedo launch and recovery system using unmanned undersea vehicles. You know that market is a hot market in my opinion. We just have to get out there and get a couple of customers. And I think that could be a real game-changer for our undersea business. On the radios, we talk about the radios, a lot of good work there. An exciting one that we haven’t really talked much about is for the Air Force, which is the Next-Gen survivable radio.
