Litigation, Investigations and Claims (Unaudited)	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]
LITIGATION, INVESTIGATIONS AND CLAIMS	LITIGATION, INVESTIGATIONS AND CLAIMS Litigation On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA and breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B. The modification relates to the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008. The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in 2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all remaining defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit. After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010, as unnecessary given the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the Plan. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s order to the Ninth Circuit. On March 16, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court. On March 30, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In 2007, the company was awarded an approximately $875 million firm fixed price contract for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) flats sequencing systems postal automation program (FSS). Those systems have now been delivered. Over the past two years, the company has submitted three certified claims to the USPS related to this program seeking approximately $179 million. Some of the company's claims are for unpaid portions of the contract price ($63 million) and direct costs incurred. Other claims are based on the company's assertions that through various acts and omissions over the life of the contract, the USPS adversely affected the cost and schedule of performance and materially altered the company's obligations under the contract. With limited exceptions, the USPS Contracting Officer has now denied the company's three certified claims. On April 13, 2012, when the Contracting Officer denied most of the company's last two claims, he also asserted claims against the company in the net amount of approximately $341 million. The USPS claims appear to the company to be primarily that, due to delays in performance, the USPS was damaged because it did not realize certain cost savings it expected from deploying the systems earlier. The company anticipates that this dispute will result in litigation. Although the nature and ultimate outcome of any such future litigation, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously to pursue this matter. The company is a party to various investigations, lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings, including government investigations and claims, that arise in the ordinary course of our business. The nature of legal proceedings is such that we cannot assure the outcome of any particular matter. However, based on information available to the company to date and other than with respect to the FSS matter, which is discussed separately above, the company does not believe that the outcome of any matter pending against the company, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial position as of March 31, 2012, or its annual results of operations or cash flows.

LITIGATION, INVESTIGATIONS AND CLAIMS

Litigation

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA and breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B. The modification relates to the employer-funded portion of the pension benefit available during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008. The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in 2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all remaining defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs appealed, and in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit. After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The District Court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010, as unnecessary given the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for the Plan. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s order to the Ninth Circuit. On March 16, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court. On March 30, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

In 2007, the company was awarded an approximately $875 million firm fixed price contract for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) flats sequencing systems postal automation program (FSS). Those systems have now been delivered. Over the past two years, the company has submitted three certified claims to the USPS related to this program seeking approximately $179 million. Some of the company's claims are for unpaid portions of the contract price ($63 million) and direct costs incurred. Other claims are based on the company's assertions that through various acts and omissions over the life of the contract, the USPS adversely affected the cost and schedule of performance and materially altered the company's obligations under the contract. With limited exceptions, the USPS Contracting Officer has now denied the company's three certified claims. On April 13, 2012, when the Contracting Officer denied most of the company's last two claims, he also asserted claims against the company in the net amount of approximately $341 million. The USPS claims appear to the company to be primarily that, due to delays in performance, the USPS was damaged because it did not realize certain cost savings it expected from deploying the systems earlier. The company anticipates that this dispute will result in litigation. Although the nature and ultimate outcome of any such future litigation, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously to pursue this matter.

The company is a party to various investigations, lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings, including government investigations and claims, that arise in the ordinary course of our business. The nature of legal proceedings is such that we cannot assure the outcome of any particular matter. However, based on information available to the company to date and other than with respect to the FSS matter, which is discussed separately above, the company does not believe that the outcome of any matter pending against the company, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial position as of March 31, 2012, or its annual results of operations or cash flows.