## Table 0 ##
Sales and Service Revenues 2011—Ingalls revenues decreased $142 million, or 5%, compared to 2010.
The decrease was primarily driven by lower revenues in Surface Combatants, partially offset by higher revenues in Amphibious Assault Ships programs and the NSC program.
The decrease in Surface Combatants revenues was primarily due to lower revenues on the DDG-51 program following the delivery of DDG-110 USS William P.  Lawrence in the first quarter of 2011 and DDG-107 USS Gravely in the third quarter of 2010, partially offset by higher revenues on DDG-113 John Finn in 2011.
The increase in Amphibious Assault Ships revenues was due to higher revenues on LPD-26 John P.  Murtha and the LHA program, partially offset by lower revenues on LPD-22 San Diego and LPD-24 Arlington.
The increase in the NSC program was primarily due to higher revenues on the fourth NSC, for which the contract was awarded in the fourth quarter of 2010, partially offset by lower revenues on NSC-3 USCGC Stratton, which was delivered in the third quarter of 2011.2010—Ingalls revenues increased $162 million, or 6%, from 2009, primarily driven by $339 million higher sales in Expeditionary Warfare, partially offset by $122 million lower sales in Surface Combatants and $62 million lower sales in Coast Guard & Coastal Defense.
The increase in Expeditionary Warfare was due to higher sales volume in the LPD program and on LHA-6 America, partially offset by lower sales in 2010 due to the delivery of LHD-8 USS Makin Island in 2009.
The decrease in Surface Combatants was primarily due to lower sales volume on the DDG-51 program following delivery of DDG-105 USS Dewey in the third quarter of 2009.
The decrease in Coast Guard & Coastal Defense was primarily due to lower sales volume following delivery of NSC-2 USCGC Waesche in the fourth quarter of 2009.
Segment Operating Income (Loss) 2011—Ingalls operating loss was $220 million compared to a loss of $61 million in 2010.
The higher loss was primarily the result of the 2011 goodwill impairment charge previously described, partially offset by the 2010 $113 million pre-tax charge resulting from our decision to wind down shipbuilding operations at our Avondale facility and the charges and adjustments recorded in the third quarter of 2010 as previously described.2010—Ingalls operating loss was $61 million compared to a loss of $29 million in 2009.
The increase in operating loss was caused primarily by unfavorable performance on Expeditionary Warfare programs and a lower level of operating income on other programs resulting from the sales volume reductions described above.
In Expeditionary Warfare, we recorded net performance adjustments of $132 million on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract, including the effect of a $113 million charge for the cumulative effect of the $210 million of incremental costs expected in connection with our decision to wind down shipbuilding operations at the Avondale facility in 2013.
See Note 4: Avondale Wind Down in Item 8.
Additionally, we recognized an unfavorable adjustment of $30 million to reflect additional costs to complete post-delivery work on LHD-8 USS Makin Island.
See Note 7: Contract Charges in Item 8.
In 2009, operating income included a favorable adjustment of $54 million on the LHD-8 contract, which was more than offset by unfavorable adjustments of $38 million and $171 million on the DDG-51 and LPD programs, respectively
## Table 1 ##
construction of CVN-79 John F.  Kennedy, construction of the U. S.  Coast Guard’s fifth National Security Cutter (unnamed), advance planning efforts for the CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln RCOH, and continued execution of the CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt RCOH.2010—The value of new contract awards during the year ended December 31, 2010, was approximately $3.6 billion.
Significant new awards during this period included $480 million for the construction of the U. S.  Coast Guard’s fourth National Security Cutter Hamilton, $480 million for design and long-lead material procurement activities for the CVN-79 John F.  Kennedy aircraft carrier, $377 million for CVN-78 Gerald R.  Ford, $224 million for LHA-7 (unnamed), $184 million for LPD-26 John P.  Murtha, $114 million for DDG-114 Ralph Johnson and $62 million for long-lead material procurement activities for LPD-27 (unnamed).
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES We endeavor to ensure the most efficient conversion of operating results into cash for deployment in operating our businesses and maximizing stockholder value.
We use various financial measures to assist in capital deployment decision making, including net cash provided by operating activities and free cash flow.
We believe these measures are useful to investors in assessing our financial performance.
The table below summarizes key components of cash flow provided by (used in) operating activities:
## Table 2 ##
Cash Flows We discuss below our major operating, investing and financing activities for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2011, as classified on our consolidated statements of cash flows.
Operating Activities 2011—Cash provided by operating activities was $528 million in 2011 compared with $359 million in 2010.
The increase of $169 million was due principally to increased earnings net of impairment charges and lower pension contributions, offset by an increase in trade working capital.
Net cash paid by Northrop Grumman on our behalf for U. S.  federal income tax obligations was $53 million.
We expect cash generated from operations for 2012 to be sufficient to service debt, meet contract obligations, and finance capital expenditures.
Although 2012 cash from operations is expected to be sufficient to service these obligations, we may from time to time borrow funds under our Credit Facility to accommodate timing differences in cash flows.2010—Net cash provided by operating activities was $359 million in 2010 compared with cash used of $88 million in 2009.
The change of $447 million was due principally to a decrease in discretionary pension contributions of $97 million, a decrease in trade working capital of $299 million, and a decrease in deferred income taxes of $79 million.
In 2009, trade working capital balances included the unfavorable impact of delayed customer billings associated with the negative performance adjustments on the LPD-22 through LPD-25 contract due to projected cost increases at completion.
See Note 7: Contract Charges in Item 8.
The change in deferred taxes was due principally to the timing of contract related deductions.
U. S.  federal income tax payments made by Northrop Grumman on our behalf were $89 million in 2010.
SEGMENT OPERATING RESULTS Basis of Presentation We are aligned into two reportable segments: Ingalls and Newport News.
## Table 3 ##
KEY SEGMENT FINANCIAL MEASURES Sales and Service Revenues Period-to-period revenues reflect performance under new and ongoing contracts.
Changes in sales and service revenues are typically expressed in terms of volume.
Unless otherwise described, volume generally refers to increases (or decreases) in reported revenues due to varying production activity levels, delivery rates or service levels on individual contracts.
Volume changes will typically carry a corresponding income change based on the margin rate for a particular contract.
Segment Operating Income Segment operating income reflects the aggregate performance results of contracts within a segment.
Excluded from this measure are certain costs not directly associated with contract performance, including the FAS/CAS Adjustment and deferred state income taxes.
Changes in segment operating income are typically expressed in terms of volume, as discussed above, or performance.
Performance refers to changes in contract margin rates.
These changes typically relate to profit recognition associated with revisions to EAC that reflect improved (or deteriorated) operating performance on a particular contract.
Operating income changes are accounted for on a cumulative to date basis at the time an EAC change is recorded.
Segment operating income may also be affected by, among other things, contract performance, the effects of workforce stoppages, the effects of natural disasters such as hurricanes, resolution of disputed items with the customer, recovery of insurance proceeds and other discrete events.
At the completion of a long-term contract, any originally estimated costs not incurred or reserves not fully utilized, such as warranty reserves, could also impact contract earnings.
Where such items have occurred and the effects are material, a separate description is provided.

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December 31</td></tr><tr><td> ($ in millions)</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>Sales and service revenues</td><td>$2,885</td><td>$3,027</td><td>$2,865</td></tr><tr><td>Segment operating income (loss)</td><td>-220</td><td>-61</td><td>-29</td></tr><tr><td><i>As a percentage of segment sales</i></td><td>-7.6%</td><td>-2.0%</td><td>-1.0%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Year Ended December 31</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> ($ in millions)</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td> 2009</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sales and service revenues</td><td>$3,766</td><td>$3,775</td><td>$3,534</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Segment operating income (loss)</td><td>342</td><td>355</td><td>313</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>As a percentage of segment sales</i></td><td>9.1%</td><td>9.4%</td><td>8.9</td><td><i>%</i></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Year Ended December 31</td></tr><tr><td>($ in millions)</td><td>2011</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>Net earnings (loss)</td><td>$-94</td><td>$135</td><td>$124</td></tr><tr><td>Goodwill impairment</td><td>290</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred income taxes</td><td>27</td><td>-19</td><td>-98</td></tr><tr><td>Depreciation and amortization</td><td>190</td><td>183</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>Stock-based compensation</td><td>42</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Retiree benefit funding less than (in excess of) expense</td><td>122</td><td>33</td><td>-28</td></tr><tr><td>Trade working capital decrease (increase)</td><td>-49</td><td>27</td><td>-272</td></tr><tr><td>Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities</td><td>$528</td><td>$359</td><td>$-88</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December 31</td><td colspan="2">2013 over 2012</td><td colspan="2">2012 over 2011</td></tr><tr><td>($ in millions)</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td><td>2011</td><td>Dollars</td><td>Percent</td><td>Dollars</td><td>Percent</td></tr><tr><td>Sales and Service Revenues</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ingalls</td><td>$2,757</td><td>$2,840</td><td>$2,885</td><td>$-83</td><td>-3%</td><td>$-45</td><td>-2%</td></tr><tr><td>Newport News</td><td>4,139</td><td>3,940</td><td>3,766</td><td>199</td><td>5%</td><td>174</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Intersegment eliminations</td><td>-76</td><td>-72</td><td>-76</td><td>-4</td><td>-6%</td><td>4</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Total sales and service revenues</td><td>$6,820</td><td>$6,708</td><td>$6,575</td><td>$112</td><td>2%</td><td>$133</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Operating Income (Loss)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ingalls</td><td>$175</td><td>$97</td><td>$-220</td><td>$78</td><td>80%</td><td>$317</td><td>144%</td></tr><tr><td>Newport News</td><td>392</td><td>360</td><td>342</td><td>32</td><td>9%</td><td>18</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Total Segment Operating Income (Loss)</td><td>567</td><td>457</td><td>122</td><td>110</td><td>24%</td><td>335</td><td>275%</td></tr><tr><td>Non-segment factors affecting operating income (loss)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>FAS/CAS Adjustment</td><td>-61</td><td>-80</td><td>-23</td><td>19</td><td>24%</td><td>-57</td><td>-248%</td></tr><tr><td>Deferred state income taxes</td><td>6</td><td>-19</td><td>1</td><td>25</td><td>132%</td><td>-20</td><td>-2,000%</td></tr><tr><td>Total operating income (loss)</td><td>$512</td><td>$358</td><td>$100</td><td>$154</td><td>43%</td><td>$258</td><td>258%</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the ratio of Ingalls of Sales and Service Revenues to the Sales and service revenues in Table 1 in 2011?
Answer: 0.76606