CUB Cubic Corp

Our Board of Directors has eight members who are to be elected by a plurality vote at the Annual Meeting, each to hold office for one year and until his successor is elected. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board have unanimously recommended the election of the eight directors listed below. Six nominated directors are independent ("Independent Directors") and two are executive employees of the Company. Proxy holders will, unless authorization to do so is withheld, vote the proxies received by

them for the election of the listed directors, in accordance with this proxy authorization, reserving the right, however, to distribute, in their discretion, their votes of uncommitted proxies among the Board nominees. The proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named. Although it is not contemplated that any nominee will be unable to serve as a director, in such event, the proxies will be voted by the proxy holders for such other persons as may be designated by the Board of Directors.

Independent Directors receive an annual retainer of $50,000. The Lead Independent Director receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000. Each Nominating and Governance Committee member receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000, with the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee receiving an additional annual retainer of $5,000. Each Executive Compensation Committee member receives an additional annual retainer of $7,500, with the Chair of the Executive Compensation Committee receiving an additional annual retainer of $7,500. Each Audit and Compliance Committee member receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000, with the Chair of the Audit and Compliance Committee receiving an additional annual retainer of $10,000. The Classified Business Oversight Committee Chair and each non-employee director member receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000. Each member of the Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000, with the Chair of the Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Committee receiving an additional annual retainer of $5,000. Admiral Hamby's employment with the National Defense University restricts the receipt of outside compensation to $27,225, so her director compensation is appropriately limited.

Independent Directors, other than Admiral Hamby, also participate in the Company's equity plans. Each of Mr. Blakley, Mr. Guiles and

Dr. Warner holds fully vested options to purchase 4,500 shares of common stock that were granted upon their initial election to the Board with an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the date of the grant. No additional options have been granted to new or existing directors since 2008. In fiscal year 2015, each Independent Director received an award of 1,560 restricted stock units ("RSUs"), except Admiral Hamby. Admiral Hamby's employment with the National Defense University restricts the receipt of outside compensation to $27,225. She has elected to receive her compensation in cash, up to the restricted amount, and has declined receipt of any stock awards. The Independent Directors' awards vest in two equal installments on each of October 1, 2015 and 2016. All of the Independent Directors' RSUs will also vest in full upon a change in control of the Company.

Employee directors receive no additional compensation for their service as directors. All Independent Directors are reimbursed for travel expenses.

Directors are also allowed to defer some or all of their cash compensation. Two directors elected to defer all of their cash compensation and one director elected to defer 50% of her cash compensation during fiscal year 2015.

(1)

Our executive directors, Messrs. Zable and Feldmann, receive no additional compensation for their service as directors and are not included in this table.

(2)

This column represents the aggregate grant date fair value, calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of the RSUs granted in fiscal year 2015. These amounts generally reflect the amount that the Company expects to expense in its financial statements over the award's vesting schedule, and do not correspond to the actual value that will be realized by the Independent Directors. For additional information on the valuation assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts, refer to note 1 to the financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the SEC. The aggregate number of RSUs outstanding as of September 30, 2015 held by each Independent Director was as follows: Mr. Blakley (4,957); Mr. Guiles (4,957); Admiral Hamby (0) Mr. Norris (4,016); Dr. Sullivan (4,957); and Dr. Warner (4,957). As of September 30, 2015, each of Mr. Blakley, Mr. Guiles and Dr. Warner held vested options to purchase 4,500 shares of the Company's common stock.

(3)

In fiscal year 2015, three of the Independent Directors elected to participate in the Cubic Corporation Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan. Earnings are not reported in the Independent Director Compensation Table because the earnings are not above market or preferential.

Meetings

The Board met twelve times last fiscal year. Each director attended at least 75% of all Board meetings and at least 75% of all meetings of Board committees on which such director served that were held during such director's term of service, except Admiral Hamby who missed 3 of the 8 Board meetings for which she was eligible to attend, due to illness or schedule conflicts, and one of the two Committee meetings for which she was eligible to attend, due to illness.

Independent Directors regularly meet without management present at the conclusion of each regular Board meeting and the Audit and Compliance Committee meetings and at other times as necessary. The Lead Independent Director, Dr. Sullivan, chairs these sessions for the Board, and Mr. Blakley chairs these sessions for the Audit and Compliance Committee.

The Board encourages its members to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The 2015 annual meeting was attended by all directors.

Management Directors

Walter C. Zable, 69, director since 1976. Executive Chair of the Board.
Bradley H. Feldmann, 54, director since 2014.

Independent Directors

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has determined and the Board has agreed that the following Independent Directors meet the independence standards of the NYSE and the categorical independence standards adopted by the Company's Board as defined in the Company's Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Bruce G. Blakley, 70, director since 2008.
Edwin A. Guiles, 66, director since 2008.
Janice M. Hamby, 58, director since 2015.
Steven J. Norris, 70, director since 2014.
Robert S. Sullivan, Ph.D., 71, director since 2004.
John H. Warner, Jr., Ph.D., 74, director since 2007.

Special Board Qualifications

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board believe the nominees are qualified to serve and should be elected in light of our business and structure because of the following specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills.

The Board believes that Mr. Zable's extensive knowledge of the Company and his wealth of experience in the technology industry provide him with the background to be the Executive Chair of the Board.

The Board believes that Mr. Blakley's public, private and non-profit business experience and his academic experience provide him with the background to be a key contributor as a member of our Board, particularly regarding financial matters of Cubic.

The Board believes that Mr. Feldmann's experience in the defense industry as well as his increased role leading the Company in recent years and history of executive management at similar companies provide him with the background to be a key member of our Board.

The Board believes that as an executive in a highly regulated industry, Mr. Guiles brings unique governmental relations experience to the Board. He is also very knowledgeable in risk management, which is attracting close scrutiny at this time. Mr. Guiles' public and non-profit business experience provides him with the background to provide critical insight as a member of the Board, particularly regarding financial, risk and government related matters for Cubic.

The Board believes that Admiral Hamby's background in directing and implementing cyber security systems in complex organizations as well as her leadership abilities provide her with the background to be a key contributor as a member of our Board.

The Board believes that Mr. Norris's global experience in business with a focus in the transportation industry provides key knowledge and background as a member of the Board.

The Board believes that Dr. Sullivan's public and private business and board experience, together with his academic executive experience provide him with the insight and background to be an important contributor to the Board.

information technology, electronics, communications, security and service support. His experience includes contract activities and product sales for both domestic and international government customers and some commercial businesses. Dr. Warner has direct experience with many of Cubic's current customers as well as customers Cubic seeks to obtain. Dr. Warner also served six years as a member of the Board of Trustees for Scripps Health, a $2.5 billion per year San Diego healthcare company. He chaired its Compensation and Human Resources Committee and was a member of its Finance and Investment Committees. He currently serves on the board of directors of TREX Enterprises, a small private defense and homeland security R&D company, where he is a member of the Audit Committee, and ICW Group, a private insurance company. At ICW Group, he is a member of the Audit Committee.

The Board believes Dr. Warner's business experience and his public and private company board experience make him a valuable member of the Board.

*

Chair

In addition to the directors who are executive officers, the following executive officers also serve at the pleasure of the Board:

John D. Thomas, 62. Mr. Thomas is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") of Cubic. He was appointed to the position in January 2013. In this role, Mr. Thomas is responsible for all aspects of the Company's financial strategies, processes and operations, including corporate development, risk management, investor relations, corporate communications, and global manufacturing and procurement. Prior to his current position, Mr. Thomas served as Senior Vice President Finance and Corporate Development since June 2012. He has played a critical role in helping to build the Company through multiple acquisitions that have significantly diversified the Company and have been instrumental in helping to make the Company a leader in its two main operating business segments, Cubic Transportation Systems ("CTS") and Cubic Global Defense ("CGD"). In addition, he was instrumental in structuring and negotiating the largest contract in the Company's history for the Prestige (Oyster) smart card ticketing contract with Transport for London and other partners. He was Vice President Finance since 1994 and also Vice President Corporate Development since 2008. He has held a variety of corporate management positions with the Company since 1980. Prior to joining Cubic, he held positions with Aramark Corporation and Crocker Bank. Mr. Thomas also serves on the Board of Directors of The Walter J. and Betty C. Zable Foundation.

Matthew. J. Cole, 36. Mr. Cole is Senior Vice President of Cubic and President of the companies comprising the CTS segment, since October 2015. Prior to that he held a variety of increasingly responsible roles at CTS since he joined in 2003, most recently serving as Executive Vice President/Deputy for Strategy, Business Development and Diversification and in key roles worldwide including in Australia and the U.K. Before joining Cubic, Mr. Cole held various financial positions with large public and private companies such as British Airways, Schlumberger, First Choice and Endemol.

James R. Edwards, 64. Mr. Edwards is Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Cubic. He was appointed to the position in June 2012. Prior to his current position, he was Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since January 2012. He joined Cubic in February 2008 as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Cubic's CTS segment. Prior to joining Cubic, Mr. Edwards served as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Kratos Defense; Senior Legal Counsel for Qualcomm Incorporated; Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of General Atomics; and General Counsel and Secretary of Logicon, Inc.

Mark A. Harrison, 58. Mr. Harrison is Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller of Cubic. He was appointed to the position in June 2012. His prior roles at Cubic include Vice President and Corporate Controller from 2004 to June 2012, Vice President – Financial Planning and Accounting from 2000 to 2004, and Assistant Corporate Controller and Director of Financial Planning from 1991 to 2000. Since 1983, Mr. Harrison has held a variety of financial positions with Cubic. From 1980 to 1983 he was a Senior Auditor with Ernst & Young.

Gregory L. Tanner, 57. Mr. Tanner is Vice President and Treasurer of Cubic. He has served as Treasurer since 2007 and was named a Vice President in October 2014. He was Assistant Treasurer from 1998 to 2007 and joined Cubic's Treasury Department in 1990. Prior to joining Cubic, Mr. Tanner worked as a financial analyst at San Diego Gas & Electric Company and at IMED Corporation.

William J. Toti, 58. Mr. Toti is Senior Vice President of Cubic and President of the companies comprising the CGD segment since July 2015, and served as Senior Vice President of Cubic and President of the Mission Support Services segment before it was combined with the Cubic Defense Systems segment to form CGD. Prior to joining Cubic in 2014, he served as vice president and account executive for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps accounts for HP Enterprise Services. Before joining HP, Mr. Toti was vice president of Mission Support Operations at Raytheon Company. He also served more than 26 years in the U.S. Navy.

Audit and Compliance Committee

The Audit and Compliance Committee members are Messrs. Blakley (Chair) and Guiles and Drs. Sullivan and Warner. The committee met twelve times during fiscal year 2015. Each member is independent as defined under Section 303A.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and in our Corporate Governance Guidelines and is financially literate. Mr. Blakley and Mr. Guiles are our Audit and Compliance Committee Financial Experts with extensive accounting experience.

The committee oversees the Company's financial reporting process. It is responsible for the appointment, retention and termination of the independent auditors and their compensation. It resolves any disputes between management and the auditors. It pre-approves all audit and non-audit services according to a written plan and budget submitted by the auditors. It meets at least quarterly with the auditors and reviews their periodic reports. The committee discusses with the auditors the scope and plan for the audit and includes management in its review of accounting and financial controls, assessment of business risks and legal and ethical compliance programs.

No Independent Director has been a member of an audit committee of any other publicly-held company except Mr. Blakley who previously served as chair of an audit committee for a publicly held real estate investment trust until August 2015. The trust is unrelated to Cubic and its subsidiaries and does not present any conflicts of interest for Cubic or the industry in which it operates.

Report of the Audit and Compliance Committee

The material in this report is not "soliciting material," is not deemed "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The committee selected Ernst & Young LLP as the independent registered public accountants ("Accountants") of the Company for fiscal year 2015. The committee has reviewed and discussed with management and the Accountants the audited financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015. The committee met with the Accountants on numerous occasions and discussed the matters required to be discussed under generally accepted auditing standards and the matters listed in Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") Auditing Standard No. 16 (Communications with Audit Committees), and has received from the Accountants the written disclosures and the letter required by the PCAOB (Independence Discussions with Audit Committees), and has discussed with the Accountants their independence.

Based on its review of the audited financial statements for fiscal year 2015 and its discussions with management and the Accountants, the committee recommended to our Board of Directors that the 2015 audited financial statements be included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Audit and Compliance Committee
Bruce G. Blakley, Chair
Edwin A. Guiles
Dr. Robert S. Sullivan
Dr. John H. Warner, Jr.

Executive Compensation Committee

The Executive Compensation Committee members are Dr. Sullivan (Chair), and Messrs. Blakley and Guiles. The committee met three times during fiscal year 2015. Each of the members of the committee is independent as defined under Section 303A.02 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.

The committee's role is to establish and oversee the Company's executive compensation programs and to oversee the amounts set aside for annual bonus and profit sharing contributions. Members of the committee annually review and approve goals and objectives relevant to compensation for the executive officers and principal officers of principal subsidiaries, evaluate each executive's performance in light of those goals and objectives, and either as a committee or together with the other Independent Directors of the Board, determine and approve the executives' compensation based on that evaluation.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

During fiscal year 2015, Dr. Sullivan and Messrs. Blakley and Guiles did not serve either as a director or as a member of the compensation committee of any other entity whose executive officers served either as a director or as a member of the Executive Compensation Committee of the Company. Therefore, there were no "interlocks" with other companies within the meaning of the proxy rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. No member of the committee is a former or current officer or employee of Cubic or any of its subsidiaries. See also the section "Executive Compensation and Other Information" later herein.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee members are Drs. Warner (Chair) and Sullivan and Mr. Norris. The committee met three times during fiscal year 2015. The committee's policy is to consider recommendations of shareholders which are received by the Corporate Secretary at least 120 days prior to one year from the date of the mailing of notice of the previous annual meeting of shareholders. Recommendations of candidates who have at least 20 years of management and defense or transportation industry experience with a company with sales of at least 75% of that of Cubic, or who could bring appropriate diversity to the Board, or who possess other relevant qualifications (for example finance and accounting, cyber security and marketing) would be preferred. If a vacancy in the Board occurs, the committee seeks recommendations from the Board and senior management personnel. The committee will also review any security holder recommendations on file. It screens and personally interviews appropriate candidates. Selected candidates may meet with additional Board members, certain members of management and the Executive Chair of the Board. The Committee evaluates responses and recommends to the full Board the name of any candidate it feels should become a nominee for election or appointment.

The governance responsibilities of the committee include tracking important legal and regulatory changes and new concepts in public company governance. Governance topics include annual Board and committee evaluations, Board composition, Board committee structure and Board refreshment as well as executive management and Board succession.

In conjunction with the Audit and Compliance Committee and the Board, the committee also addresses our legal compliance efforts in certain complex areas, such as export control, antitrust and foreign corrupt practices. In conjunction with the Audit and Compliance Committee and the Board, it is cognizant of enterprise risk. In its

analysis, enterprise risk does not necessarily include the hundreds of risks which, if encountered, could be mitigated without substantial harm to our business segments. Instead, the concern is to identify, and have a plan to respond to, those few issues which could seriously impact our, or one of our material divisions' short or long term ability to continue normal operations.

Classified Business Oversight Committee

The Classified Business Oversight Committee members are Dr. Warner (Chair), Mr. Feldman and Mr. Zable and Admiral Hamby, who joined the committee when she was appointed Director in 2015. The Committee held one meeting in fiscal year 2015. The purpose of the committee is to provide oversight of the Company's business activities that for purposes of national security have been designated as classified by the United States government.

Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Committee

The committee members are Mr. Norris (Chair), Admiral Hamby and Dr. Warner. The committee was formally chartered by the Board of Directors on August 4, 2015. The Committee held its first meeting in November 2015. The purpose of the committee is to review and recommend to management and the Board objective policies and procedures that best serve Cubic's and its shareholders' interests in maintaining a business environment to high standards of ethics, integrity and compliance in the area of corporate responsibility,

including topics such as conflict minerals, human trafficking, human testing, employee relations, health and safety, political participation and environmental stewardship.

Risk Management

The Audit and Compliance Committee reviews and approves the procedures adopted and conclusions reached by our management Enterprise Risk Group ("ERG") and discusses with the chair of the ERG, or the ERG itself, major risk exposures and the steps that have been taken to monitor and control such exposures.

Matters of risk management are brought to the attention of the Audit and Compliance Committee by the General Counsel, who chairs the ERG, and the Director of Internal Audit. The ERG reviews and assesses perceived risks to the enterprise as a whole and its two major subsidiaries. It works with relevant managers and develops mitigation and remediation plans. Periodic reports are made.

We have an ERG for the parent company and sub-groups for both of our business segments. Each group consists of its senior officers who meet periodically to identify, assess and rank the perceived severity of risks unique to their businesses. Appropriate mitigation plans and training will be implemented. To date, the ERG has not identified any risks, capable of control, which it believes cannot be reasonably controlled or mitigated.

The Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Certificate of Incorporation") currently provides that directors may be removed by the stockholders only for cause and only by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 and 2/3% of the Company's common stock. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held in a case construing the certificate of incorporation of another Delaware corporation that if a Delaware corporation has neither a staggered board nor provides for cumulative voting in the election of directors, provisions of the corporation's certificate of incorporation and bylaws providing that directors may be removed only "for cause" are contrary to Section 141(k) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and are therefore invalid and unenforceable. While this was not a decision by the Delaware Supreme Court and thus is not binding on other Delaware courts, because the Company does not have a staggered board or cumulative voting in the election of directors, the decision raises a question whether the portion of Article 12 of the Certificate of Incorporation which provides that directors may be removed by the stockholders only for cause is valid and enforceable. While this ruling did not address the validity and enforceability of the provision of Article 12 that directors can be removed only by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 and 2/3% of the Company's common stock (and indeed the validity of such a provision was recently upheld in different litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery), after review, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board have determined that it is advisable and in the best interests of

the Company and its stockholders to eliminate both the provision of Article 12 of the Certificate of Incorporation that directors can be removed only for cause and the provision of Article 12 of the Certificate of Incorporation that directors can be removed only by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 and 2/3% of the Company's common stock. As a result, the Board has approved, and recommends that the stockholders adopt, an amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation which removes Article 12 in its entirety from the Certificate of Incorporation. If Article 12 is removed from the Certificate of Incorporation, directors may be removed by the stockholders with or without cause by the holders of a majority of the Company's common stock.

If approved, the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation would become effective upon the filing of a Certificate of Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, which the Company would do promptly after stockholder approval is obtained for the proposed amendment.

The Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation is attached to this Proxy Statement as Appendix A.

We urge your vote to adopt the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation. The affirmative vote of the holders of at least 662/3% of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock is needed to adopt the proposed amendment.

The Board is seeking your approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and other related tables and disclosure. Accordingly, the Board recommends that you vote "FOR" the following resolution:

"Resolved, that the compensation of Cubic's named executive officers during fiscal year 2015, as described in its proxy statement for its 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and other related tables and disclosure, is hereby approved."

This proposal, commonly known as a "say-on-pay" proposal, gives you the opportunity to express your views on the Company's executive compensation practices. Because your vote is advisory, it will not be binding upon the Board. However, the Executive Compensation Committee will consider the outcome of the vote when making future executive compensation decisions. At our 2015 Annual Meeting, shareholders approved our Executive Compensation policies by a strong majority, with approximately 91% of shareholder votes cast in favor of our 2015 Say-on-Pay resolution (excluding abstentions and broker non votes). We currently expect to bring a similar proposal to you at each annual meeting of shareholders.

As described more fully in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis herein, the Company evaluates executive officer compensation in several different ways, including reviewing market survey compensation data, reviewing customized compensation information for companies of comparable size and complexity and receiving advice and recommendations from the Chief Executive Officer for executives other than himself. These multiple bases of review and evaluation help our Executive Compensation Committee oversee an executive compensation program that is competitive yet closely tied to the Company's and each executive officer's performance. Additionally, the Company's annual bonus program recognizes and rewards the success of executives who manage performance to achieve the short-term goals set for them every year by the Company and the Executive Compensation Committee.

The Board recognizes that there is considerable public discussion regarding appropriate approaches to compensation. However, the Board believes that the Company's executive compensation policies are balanced, appropriately focused on pay for performance principles, aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders, and enable the Company to attract and retain experienced senior executives.

Compensation Discussion and
Analysis

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the Company's compensation philosophy and the objectives of the Company's compensation program for its executive officers, including the named executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table below (the "NEOs") and how the Executive Compensation Committee oversees the executive compensation program. This Compensation Discussion and Analysis also describes the compensation determination process for fiscal year 2015 and how each element of compensation was determined.

Review of Executive
Compensation Best Practices

The Board believes that the Company's compensation policies and practices are aligned with good corporate governance:

•

Stock ownership guidelines apply to both executive officers and directors

•

Clawback policy for incentive compensation

•

"Double trigger" change-in-control agreements

•

No tax gross-ups

•

No employment contracts

•

Modest perquisites

•

Long-term equity incentive award program aligns executive incentives with shareholder interests

•

Strong shareholder response (91% in favor) to 2015 say-on-pay vote

Overview and Objectives of
Executive Compensation
Program

The Board recognizes that there is considerable public discussion regarding appropriate approaches to compensation. However, the Board believes that the Company's executive compensation policies are balanced, appropriately focused on pay for performance principles, aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders, and enable the Company to attract and retain experienced senior executives.

As described more fully in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Company evaluates executive officer compensation in several different ways, including reviewing market survey compensation data, reviewing customized compensation information for companies of comparable size and complexity and receiving advice and recommendations from the CEO. These multiple bases of review and

evaluation help our Executive Compensation Committee oversee an executive compensation program that is competitive yet tied to the Company's and each executive officer's performance. Additionally, the Company's annual performance bonus program recognizes and rewards the success of executives who manage performance to achieve the short-term goals set for them every year by the Company and the Executive Compensation Committee.

We have three elements in our executive compensation program: base salary, an annual performance bonus, and a long-term equity incentive award program for our executive officers. The long-term equity incentive award program includes RSUs that vest based on the passage of time as well as RSUs that vest based on the Company's achievement of certain performance objectives over a three-year performance period.

Setting Executive
Compensation – Role of the
Executive Compensation
Committee and Management

The Executive Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing our executive compensation program for all executive officers, including the NEOs, for the senior officers of the Company's major business units, as well as determining and approving ongoing compensation arrangements for our NEOs. The Executive Compensation Committee also makes recommendations to the Board with respect to compensation for our Independent Directors. In making its decisions, the Executive Compensation Committee relies on advice from its independent compensation consultant and receives, reviews, and acts on recommendations from the CEO regarding salary, bonus and equity compensation for all executive officers including the NEOs (other than himself) and for the senior officers of its major business units. Our human resources department assists the CEO in the formulation of compensation recommendations to the Executive Compensation Committee, and other executive officers may provide relevant input as needed for persons other than themselves. It evaluates and approves these compensation elements annually. If relatives of any director or elected corporate principal officer are also employees of the Company or any subsidiary, the Executive Compensation Committee reviews compensation recommendations for such individuals.

Role of Independent
Compensation Consultant and
Comparable Company
Information

Our Executive Compensation Committee has not historically established compensation levels based on benchmarking. Our Executive Compensation Committee has instead relied upon the

judgment of its members in making compensation decisions after reviewing our performance and carefully evaluating an NEO's performance during the year against established goals, leadership qualities, operational performance, business responsibilities, career with our company, current compensation arrangements and long-term potential to enhance shareholder value.

However, in order to attract, retain and motivate senior executives, our annual compensation evaluation process does include a review of the salary, bonus and long-term incentive practices of organizations of similar size, in comparable industries, and concerning individuals with relevant responsibilities and experience. The CEO and our human resources department support their recommendations regarding executive compensation with this competitive market data. For fiscal year 2015, executive compensation levels by job category were reviewed in the context of industry survey data provided by three independent consulting firms (Radford, Mercer and Towers Watson), which surveys were subscribed to by our human resources department (data is not customized for the Company). The companies included in these surveys have both a regional and national focus. Together, these surveys included data from approximately 4,000 companies and included data regarding both executive and non-executive salaries, bonuses and equity compensation. We do not instruct the providers of this data to significantly vary their reports from a standard format, the identities of the individual companies included in the surveys were not provided to the Executive Compensation Committee, and the Executive Compensation Committee did not refer to individual compensation information for such companies. Our objective is to obtain data from a broad spectrum of technology and defense companies and also from public companies of similar size in revenue.

While the Executive Compensation Committee reviewed the foregoing comparable company data in connection with its determinations of the fiscal year 2015 base salaries, target bonuses and long-term equity incentive awards for our NEOs, the Executive Compensation Committee did not attempt to set those compensation levels or awards at a certain target percentile with respect to the comparable company data or otherwise rely entirely on that data to determine NEO compensation. Instead, as described above and consistent with past practice, the Executive Compensation Committee members relied on their judgment and experience in setting those compensation levels and making those awards. We expect that the Executive Compensation Committee will continue to review comparable company data in connection with setting the compensation we offer our NEOs to help ensure that our compensation programs are competitive and fair.

The Executive Compensation Committee is authorized to retain the services of one or more executive compensation advisors, as it sees fit, in connection with the oversight of our executive compensation program. During fiscal year 2015, the Executive Compensation Committee independently engaged and received advice from Towers Watson. Towers Watson provided the Executive Compensation Committee with advice regarding senior executive compensation and Independent Director compensation. Towers Watson was asked to survey similarly sized companies in similar businesses in respect of senior executive positions and responsibilities, taking into account the range of salary, bonus and long-term incentive compensation without reference to perquisites and equity-based or related awards. They were also asked for input related to setting compensation for fiscal year 2016. In addition, during fiscal year 2015, management retained Towers Watson to provide pension and actuarial services to the Company in connection with the Company's pension plan. Management consulted with the Executive Compensation Committee prior to its retention of Towers Watson for such additional services. During fiscal year 2015, the aggregate fees for determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director

compensation paid to Towers Watson was $29,744, and the aggregate fees for the additional services related to pension and actuarial services paid to Towers Watson was $141,382. After review and consultation with Towers Watson, the Executive Compensation Committee has determined that Towers Watson is independent and there is no conflict of interest resulting from retaining Towers Watson currently or during fiscal year 2015. In reaching these conclusions, the Executive Compensation Committee considered the factors set forth in Exchange Act Rule 10C-1 and NYSE listing standards.

As part of its review, Towers Watson prepared an independent assessment of competitive compensation levels and incentive practices for the Company's CEO for fiscal year 2015 and beyond. The review was based on the Radford, Mercer and Towers Watson published survey data provided by our human resources department as well as proxy disclosures by a select group of relevant peer companies. The peer companies were approved by the Executive Compensation Committee with review and input from Towers Watson and senior management based on industry sector, similarity of business activities, size and performance. The objective was to have a group of companies sufficient in size and relevance to provide meaningful assessments of compensation levels and practices. The peers included the following 15 defense and technology companies.

AeroVironment, Inc.
Ansys, Inc.
CACI International, Inc.
Ducommun Inc.
Esterline Technologies Corp.
HEICO Corp.
iGATE Corporation
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
ManTech International Corporation
Moog Inc.
NCI, Inc.
Teledyne Technologies Inc.
Teradata Corporation
Unisys Corporation
ViaSat, Inc.

Compensation Recovery Policy

Management and the Board believe our compensation policies are not reasonably likely to result in the incurrence of a material adverse financial or other effect. Moreover, we believe our compensation policies and practices have not and will not impact our risk management objectives and do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. However, the Board believes that it is prudent to maintain a compensation recovery policy.

Pursuant to the terms of the compensation recovery or "clawback" policy, the Board is given the right to require the reimbursement or forfeiture of incentive compensation from an executive officer in the event the officer's wrongdoing is later determined by the Board to have resulted in (a) a restatement of the Company's financial results due to its material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under U.S. securities laws, or (b) a material negative revision of a financial or operating measure on the basis of which incentive compensation was awarded (a "Recoverable Event"). We believe that by providing the Company with the appropriate power to recover incentive compensation paid to an executive officer in this situation, the Company demonstrates its commitment to strong corporate

governance. This clawback policy is in addition to any policies or recovery rights that are provided under applicable laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under our clawback policy, if the Board determines that a Recoverable Event was caused by an executive officer's fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct, it may require reimbursement from the executive officer for vested incentive compensation and/or the forfeiture of unvested or unpaid incentive compensation. The amount of vested compensation that may be recovered or subject to forfeiture is any incentive compensation paid to, and any performance-based equity awards earned by, the executive officer that the executive officer would not have received if the Company's financial results had been reported properly. The right to cause a forfeiture or recovery of incentive compensation applies to incentive compensation awarded, vested and/or paid during the twelve months prior to the date on which the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement.

Ownership Guidelines

The Executive Compensation Committee has established management and directors stockholding guidelines (the "Ownership Guidelines") to further align the interests of management with the Company's shareholders, with the intent that the guidelines be met within five years of implementation, promotion or new hire, whichever is later.

The Ownership Guidelines are as follows:

For Management:

•

Chief Executive Officer, three times base salary;

•

Other executive officers, one times base salary; and

•

Vice Presidents or above who receive long-term equity incentive awards, 0.5 times base salary.

For Directors:

•

Three times annual retainer.

Under the Ownership Guidelines, all Company shares directly held by the director or officer, his or her related trusts and immediate family shall be included in the calculations, provided, however, that any unvested RSUs shall not be included.

Anti-Hedging Policy

Company policy prohibits our directors, NEOs and other elected officers from engaging in hedging transactions with respect to Company stock.

Response to the 2015
Say-On-Pay Vote

In February 2015, we held a say-on-pay vote, and our shareholders overwhelmingly approved the compensation of our NEOs, with

approximately 91% of shareholder votes cast in favor of our 2015 say-on-pay resolution (excluding abstentions and broker non-votes). As we evaluated our compensation practices and talent needs after this date, we were mindful of the strong support our shareholders expressed for our compensation philosophy. Following its annual review of our executive compensation practices after the annual meeting, the Executive Compensation Committee decided generally to retain the approach to executive compensation it had previously adopted for fiscal year 2014.

Fiscal Year 2015 Executive
Compensation Decisions

The amount of each element of pay is determined annually taking into account factors including competitive company compensation data, as described above. A description of the executive compensation decisions with respect to fiscal year 2015 compensation for the NEOs is set forth below.

Base Salary

Base salaries for our executives are established based on individual factors such as the scope of their responsibilities, background, track record, training and experience, as well as competitive market compensation and the overall market demand for such executives at the time the respective executive is hired or promoted. As with total executive compensation, we believe that executive base salaries should be competitive with the range of salaries for executives in similar positions and with similar responsibilities, although we have not historically benchmarked executive base salaries against a specific market comparison group. An executive's base salary is also evaluated together with components of the executive's other compensation to ensure that the executive's total compensation is consistent with our overall compensation philosophy.

In September 2014, the Executive Compensation Committee reviewed the base salaries of the NEOs and after consultation with the CEO (with respect to the salaries of the other NEOs) and a review of the comparable company information described above, the Executive Compensation Committee determined to increase the base salary for fiscal year 2015 of each of Mr. Shewmaker and Mr. Zable by 4% and Mr. Thomas by approximately 5% over each such officer's base salary for fiscal year 2014. The annual base salaries of Mr. Shewmaker, Mr. Zable and Mr. Thomas for fiscal year 2015 were $478,900, $624,000 and $500,000, respectively. Mr. Feldmann's base salary had been increased to $700,000 in July 2014 as a result of his promotion to CEO, and no further increase was awarded for fiscal 2015. Mr. Toti was hired in July 2014 at a base salary of $450,000 and no further increase was awarded for fiscal 2015. Mr. Schmitz received an increase in his base salary of 4% in September 2014 to $436,000, but his base salary was reduced in February 2015 by approximately 20% to $350,000 in connection with the Company's reorganization, when he accepted a different role. The fiscal year 2015 base salaries for each of the NEOs are reflected in the Summary Compensation Table below.

Annual Incentives

Our executive compensation program includes eligibility for an annual performance-based cash bonus for all executives. Our annual bonuses emphasize pay-for-performance by providing our executives with the opportunity to receive performance bonuses based on corporate performance relative to those measures which are determined by the Executive Compensation Committee to be most likely to enhance shareholder value.

For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Feldmann had a target bonus of 100% of salary and each of Messrs. Thomas, Shewmaker, Toti, Zable and Schmitz had a target bonus of 50% of salary. For fiscal year 2014, Mr. Feldmann had a target bonus of 62.5% of salary, which was prorated at 50% for the first nine months of the year and 100% for the last three months of the year. The maximum bonus is one and one-half times the target bonus.

For fiscal year 2015, the NEOs were eligible to receive a fiscal year 2015 bonus if the financial performance of the Company or a business segment of the Company met selected goals. The various performance objectives under the annual bonus plan are weighted depending on the Executive Compensation Committee's belief regarding the suitability of emphasis of each factor for that year's performance. The fiscal year 2015 annual bonuses for Messrs. Feldmann, Thomas and Zable were tied to selected financial goals related to the Company's performance, including sales, adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("Adjusted EBITDA"), and return on invested capital. The fiscal year 2015 bonus formula identified the major bonus element as earnings per share ("EPS") for Messrs. Feldmann Thomas and Zable because the Executive Compensation Committee believes this financial metric to be a principal driver of the attractiveness of an equity investment in the Company.

The fiscal year 2015 annual bonus for Mr. Shewmaker was tied to the performance of our Cubic Transportation Systems ("CTS") business,

including sales, Adjusted EBITDA and return on invested capital, as well as sales, Adjusted EBITDA, return on invested capital and EPS of the Company. The fiscal year 2015 annual bonuses for Messrs. Toti and Schmitz were tied to the performance of our Cubic Global Defense ("CGD") business, including sales, Adjusted EBITDA and return on invested capital, as well as sales, Adjusted EBITDA, return on invested capital and EPS of the Company. For Messrs. Shewmaker, Toti and Schmitz, the fiscal year 2015 bonus formula identified the major bonus element as Adjusted EBITDA of their respective businesses, because the Executive Compensation Committee wanted to reward the financial performance of the segment to which such executives' services primarily relate.

For our fiscal year 2015 bonus plan, the primary annual bonus determination was formulaic; however, the Executive Compensation Committee adjusted the goals in accordance with the previously approved plan for the impact of acquisitions made during 2015, and the impact of differences between the planned and actual foreign currency exchange rates. In addition, the Committee modified the measure of EPS for the effect of a non-cash U.S. deferred tax asset valuation allowance established during fiscal 2015, adding back $1.33 to EPS for purposes of this performance measure. The additional amounts paid to the NEOs as a result of this adjustment were as follows: Mr. Feldmann – $115,831; Mr. Zable – $49,169; Mr. Thomas – $39,398; Mr. Toti – $17,729; Mr. Shewmaker – $15,094; Mr. Schmitz – $5,778. The Committee determined that the nature of the non-cash effect on EPS did not reflect actual performance within the control of management. The Committee further determined that if and when adjustments to the U.S. deferred tax asset valuation allowance are made in future years, these amounts would also not be included in the measure of EPS. In effect, if the valuation allowance were reduced or reversed, there would be a corresponding reduction of the EPS results only for purposes of this performance measure.

Target levels for the various performance objectives are set to require challenging but attainable goals depending on current market conditions and the Company's business prospects. The Executive

Compensation Committee and management believe our annual bonus plan design balances the appropriate level of risk in management decision making with the careful use of capital and assets.

(1)

Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization ("Adjusted EBITDA") is a non-GAAP performance measure management uses that excludes income taxes, capital structure related expenses, non-operating income and expenses, depreciation, amortization, and goodwill impairment charges. The following is a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to net income as defined by the Compensation Committee for purposes of the 2015 Annual Incentive Plan.

Each RSU represents a contingent right to receive one share of the Company's common stock. For all time-based vesting RSUs, other than those granted to Walter C. Zable, the RSUs vest in four equal installments on each of October 1, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, subject to the recipient's continued service with the Company through each such date. For the time-based vesting RSUs granted to Walter C. Zable, the RSUs vest in two equal installments on each of October 1, 2015 and October 1, 2016. Dividend equivalent rights accrue with respect to the RSUs when and as dividends are paid on the Company's common stock and vest proportionately with the RSUs to which they relate. Vested shares will be delivered to the recipient following each vesting date. The time-based vesting RSUs shall vest immediately upon a recipient's termination of employment or service as a result of his death or disability. For time-based vesting RSUs, other than those granted to Mr. Zable, the RSUs shall vest immediately upon a recipient's termination without cause or resignation for good reason within twelve months following a change in control. For time-based vesting RSUs granted to Mr. Zable, the RSUs shall vest immediately upon a change in control.

The performance-based vesting RSUs are intended to reward the achievement of sales growth, Adjusted EBITDA growth, and return on equity ("ROE") objectives over a three-year performance period. The three-year performance period for the performance-based vesting RSUs granted on November 6, 2014 commenced on October 1, 2014 and will end on September 30, 2017.

Specifically, recipients of the performance-based vesting RSUs will be eligible to vest in the RSUs at the end of the three-year performance period based on the achievement of specified sales growth, Adjusted EBITDA growth, and ROE targets for the performance period established by the Executive Compensation Committee, subject to the recipient's continued service with the Company through such vesting date, except as otherwise provided in the applicable RSU agreement.

The RSUs vest based 40% on sales growth achievement, 30% on Adjusted EBITDA growth achievement, and 30% on ROE achievement by the Company during such performance period. If the Company's sales growth achievement, Adjusted EBITDA growth achievement, and/or ROE achievement for the performance period equals or exceeds one of three different achievement levels (threshold, target and maximum), then a certain percentage of the RSUs will vest (25%, 100% and 200%, respectively). The percentage for determining the number of RSUs that will vest if performance is between the specified achievement levels will be determined by linear interpolation between the applicable achievement amounts for each measure.

The Company's sales growth generally means the aggregate of the Company's sales during the performance period, divided by a baseline sales level determined by the Executive Compensation Committee. The Company's Adjusted EBITDA growth generally means the aggregate of the Company's Adjusted EBITDA during the performance period, divided by a baseline Adjusted EBITDA level determined by the Executive Compensation Committee. The Company's ROE for the performance period generally means the Company's net income ROE, expressed as an average annual percentage of beginning equity.

Following the completion of the three-year performance period, the Executive Compensation Committee will certify the Company's performance relative to the sales growth, Adjusted EBITDA growth, and ROE objectives for such performance period.

As described above, based on the level of such sales growth, Adjusted EBITDA growth, and ROE, the number of target RSUs granted to a recipient will be multiplied by a percentage from 0% to 200% to determine the number of RSUs vesting. Dividend equivalent rights accrue with respect to the RSUs when and as dividends are paid on the Company's common stock and vest proportionately with the RSUs to which they relate. Vested shares will be delivered to the recipient following the vesting date.

Upon a change in control of the Company, a number of performance-based vesting RSUs equal to the target RSUs will vest immediately prior to the date of such change in control. In addition, a number of performance-based vesting RSUs equal to the target RSUs will vest immediately upon a recipient's termination of employment or service as a result of his or her death, disability, termination without cause or resignation for good reason; however, in the event of a recipient's termination without cause or resignation for good reason, the target RSUs vesting as a result of such termination will be prorated for the portion of the performance period that has elapsed prior to the date of such termination.

Deferred Compensation Plan

Certain of the directors and NEOs participate in the Cubic Corporation Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Deferred Compensation Plan"). For more information, please see the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation table below.

Retirement Benefits

All of our regular employees, including our NEOs, who meet certain defined requirements, may participate in our 401(k) plan. 401(k) matching payments and profit sharing plan contribution are equally available to all eligible employees. The profit sharing contribution percentage is based on a scale ranging from 2.5% to 9% of eligible compensation and is tied to the Company's ROE for the fiscal year. For 2015, the minimum threshold for ROE was not achieved, resulting in a profit sharing payout at the floor percentage of 2.5%. The value of the Company's contributions on behalf of the NEOs during fiscal year 2015 is set forth in the Summary Compensation Table below.

Certain of the NEOs are also participants in the Cubic Corporation Pension Plan (the "Pension Plan"), which plan was frozen as of December 31, 2006. For more information, please see the Pension Benefits table below.

Other Benefits

We provide certain perquisites and personal benefits to our senior executives. These include annual physical examinations, term life insurance, personal travel, a financial planning benefit of up to $15,000 per year per NEO for fiscal year 2015 and $10,000 per year per NEO thereafter and an auto allowance. In addition, Messrs. Feldmann and Zable are allowed limited use of the Company's airplane for personal travel, which does not exceed the lesser of 6 round trips or 2000 flight minutes per year. Further they are responsible for the imputed taxable income of their use and that of their guests on such flights. Our Executive Compensation Committee periodically reviews the levels of perquisites and other personal benefits to the NEOs to ensure they fit within the Company's overall compensation philosophy.

Severance and Change in
Control Benefits

The Board has approved severance and change in control arrangements in which our NEOs participate to provide for certain severance benefits in the event that a NEO's employment is involuntarily or constructively terminated, including in connection with a change in control. The Company recognizes the challenges executives often face securing new employment following termination.

To mitigate these challenges and to secure the focus of our management team on the Company's affairs, all NEOs are entitled to receive severance payments under the Company's severance policy upon a termination by the Company without cause. The Company believes that reasonable severance benefits for its executive officers are important because it may be difficult for its executive officers to find comparable employment within a short period of time following certain qualifying terminations. In addition to normal severance, we provide enhanced benefits in the event of an involuntary termination or a constructive termination within 3 months before or 24 months after a change in control as a means of reinforcing and encouraging the continued attention and dedication of our executives to their duties of employment without personal distraction or conflict of interest in circumstances that could arise from the occurrence of a change in control.

The Company believes that the interests of shareholders will be best served if the interests of its executive officers are aligned with them, and providing these change in control benefits should eliminate, or at least reduce, the reluctance of the Company's executives to pursue potential change in control transactions that may be in the best interests of shareholders.

Our Transition Protection Plan (the "Protection Plan"), under which the foregoing change in control severance benefits are provided, also assists in the retention and attraction of senior individuals by reducing their concern for financial security in the event of a job loss in connection with a change of control. While these arrangements form an integral part of the total compensation provided to these individuals and are considered by the Executive Compensation Committee when determining NEO compensation, the decision to offer these benefits did not influence the Executive Compensation Committee's determinations concerning other direct compensation or benefit levels.

The terms of these severance arrangements are described below under "Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control."

Deductibility of Executive
Compensation

As part of its role, the Executive Compensation Committee reviews and considers the deductibility of the Company's executive compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 162(m) generally limits the tax deduction for compensation in excess of one million dollars paid to certain executive officers. However, performance-based compensation may be excluded from the limit so long as it meets certain requirements. Our Executive Compensation Committee does not necessarily limit executive compensation to the amount deductible under that provision.

In its review and establishment of compensation programs and awards for our NEOs, the Executive Compensation Committee considers the anticipated deductibility or non-deductibility of the compensation as only one factor in assessing whether a particular compensatory arrangement is appropriate, particularly in light of the goals of maintaining a competitive executive compensation system generally (i.e., paying for performance and maximizing shareholder return).

We reserve the right to use our judgment to authorize compensation payments that do not qualify for the compensation deduction if, in light of all applicable circumstances, we believe that such payments are appropriate and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

Executive Compensation
Committee Report

The material in this report is not "soliciting material," is not deemed "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Executive Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Cubic Corporation has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and, based on such review and discussions, recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015 and in the Company's Proxy Statement for its 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Executive Compensation Committee
Dr. Robert S. Sullivan, Chair
Bruce G. Blakley
Edwin A. Guiles