Investigations, Claims and Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Investigations, Claims and Litigation	11. INVESTIGATIONS, CLAIMS AND LITIGATION Litigation On May 4, 2012, the company commenced an action, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This lawsuit relates to an approximately $875 million firm fixed-price contract awarded to the company in 2007 by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for the construction and delivery of flats sequencing systems (FSS) as part of the postal automation program. The FSS have been delivered. The company’s lawsuit is based on various theories of liability. The complaint seeks approximately $63 million for unpaid portions of the contract price, and approximately $115 million 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. The United States responded to the company’s complaint with an answer, denying most of the company’s claims, and counterclaims seeking approximately $410 million, less certain amounts outstanding under the contract. The principal counterclaim alleges that the company delayed its performance and caused damages to the USPS because USPS did not realize certain costs savings as early as it had expected. On April 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice informed the company of a False Claims Act complaint relating to the FSS contract that was filed under seal by a relator in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On June 3, 2013, the United States filed a Notice informing the Court that the United States had decided not to intervene in this case. The relator alleged that the company violated the False Claims Act in a number of ways with respect to the FSS contract, alleged damage to the USPS in an amount of at least approximately $179 million annually, alleged that he was improperly discharged in retaliation, and sought an unspecified partial refund of the contract purchase price, penalties, attorney’s fees and other costs of suit. The relator later voluntarily dismissed his retaliation claim and reasserted it in a separate arbitration, which he also ultimately voluntarily dismissed. On September 5, 2014, the court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the relator’s False Claims Act case be dismissed with prejudice. On December 19, 2014, the company filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the principal counterclaim referenced above. On June 29, 2015, the Court heard argument and denied that motion without prejudice to filing a later motion to dismiss. Although the ultimate outcome of these matters (“the FSS matters,” collectively), including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously to pursue and defend the FSS matters. On August 8, 2013, the company received a court-appointed expert’s report in litigation pending in the Second Federal Court of the Federal District in Brazil brought by the Brazilian Post and Telegraph Corporation (ECT), a Brazilian state-owned entity, against Solystic SAS (Solystic), a French subsidiary of the company, and two of its consortium partners. In this suit, commenced on December 17, 2004, and relatively inactive for some period of time, ECT alleges the consortium breached its contract with ECT and seeks damages of approximately R$111 million (the equivalent of approximately $33 million as of December 31, 2017), plus interest, inflation adjustments and attorneys’ fees, as authorized by Brazilian law, which amounts could be significant over time. The original suit sought R$89 million (the equivalent of approximately $27 million as of December 31, 2017) in damages. In October 2013, ECT asserted an additional damage claim of R$22 million (the equivalent of approximately $7 million as of December 31, 2017). In its counterclaim, Solystic alleges ECT breached the contract by wrongfully refusing to accept the equipment Solystic had designed and built and seeks damages of approximately €31 million (the equivalent of approximately $37 million as of December 31, 2017), plus interest, inflation adjustments and attorneys’ fees, as authorized by Brazilian law. The Brazilian court retained an expert to consider certain issues pending before it. On August 8, 2013 and September 10, 2014, the company received reports from the expert, which contain some recommended findings relating to liability and the damages calculations put forth by ECT. Some of the expert’s recommended findings were favorable to the company and others were favorable to ECT. In November 2014, the parties submitted comments on the expert’s most recent report. On June 16, 2015, the court published a decision denying the parties’ request to present oral testimony. At some future point, the court is expected to issue a decision on the parties’ claims and counterclaims that could accept or reject, in whole or in part, the expert’s recommended findings. The company previously identified and disclosed to the U.S. Government various issues relating primarily to time-charging practices of some employees working on a particular program with remote deployments. The Department of Justice is continuing to investigate this matter, and the company is cooperating in that investigation. Depending upon the ultimate outcome of this matter, the company could be subject to damages, civil or criminal fines, penalties or other sanctions, and suspension or debarment actions; however, we cannot at this point predict the outcome. We are engaged in remediation activities relating to environmental conditions allegedly resulting from historic operations at the former United States Navy and Grumman facilities in Bethpage, New York. For over 20 years, we have worked closely with the United States Navy, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Health and other federal, state and local governmental authorities, to address legacy environmental conditions in Bethpage. We have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, as included in Note 12, substantial remediation costs related to these environmental conditions. The remediation standards or requirements to which we are subject may change and costs may increase materially. The State of New York has notified us that it intends to seek to impose additional remedial requirements and, among other things, is evaluating natural resource damages. In addition, we are and may become a party to various legal proceedings and disputes related to remediation and/or alleged environmental impacts in Bethpage, including with federal and state entities, local municipalities and water districts, insurance carriers and class action plaintiffs. These Bethpage matters could result in additional costs, fines, penalties, sanctions, compensatory or other damages (including natural resource damages), determinations on allocation, allowability and coverage, and non-monetary relief. We cannot at this time predict or reasonably estimate the potential cumulative outcomes or ranges of possible liability of these aggregate Bethpage matters. The company is a party to various other investigations, lawsuits, claims, enforcement actions 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, the company does not believe that the outcome of any of these other matters pending against the company is likely to have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position as of December 31, 2017, or its annual results of operations and/or cash flows.

11. INVESTIGATIONS, CLAIMS AND LITIGATION

Litigation

On May 4, 2012, the company commenced an action, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. v. United States, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This lawsuit relates to an approximately $875 million firm fixed-price contract awarded to the company in 2007 by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for the construction and delivery of flats sequencing systems (FSS) as part of the postal automation program. The FSS have been delivered. The company’s lawsuit is based on various theories of liability. The complaint seeks approximately $63 million for unpaid portions of the contract price, and approximately $115 million 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. The United States responded to the company’s complaint with an answer, denying most of the company’s claims, and counterclaims seeking approximately $410 million, less certain amounts outstanding under the contract. The principal counterclaim alleges that the company delayed its performance and caused damages to the USPS because USPS did not realize certain costs savings as early as it had expected. On April 2, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice informed the company of a False Claims Act complaint relating to the FSS contract that was filed under seal by a relator in June 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On June 3, 2013, the United States filed a Notice informing the Court that the United States had decided not to intervene in this case. The relator alleged that the company violated the False Claims Act in a number of ways with respect to the FSS contract, alleged damage to the USPS in an amount of at least approximately $179 million annually, alleged that he was improperly discharged in retaliation, and sought an unspecified partial refund of the contract purchase price, penalties, attorney’s fees and other costs of suit. The relator later voluntarily dismissed his retaliation claim and reasserted it in a separate arbitration, which he also ultimately voluntarily dismissed. On September 5, 2014, the court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the relator’s False Claims Act case be dismissed with prejudice. On December 19, 2014, the company filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the principal counterclaim referenced above. On June 29, 2015, the Court heard argument and denied that motion without prejudice to filing a later motion to dismiss. Although the ultimate outcome of these matters (“the FSS matters,” collectively), including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously to pursue and defend the FSS matters.

On August 8, 2013, the company received a court-appointed expert’s report in litigation pending in the Second Federal Court of the Federal District in Brazil brought by the Brazilian Post and Telegraph Corporation (ECT), a Brazilian state-owned entity, against Solystic SAS (Solystic), a French subsidiary of the company, and two of its consortium partners. In this suit, commenced on December 17, 2004, and relatively inactive for some period of time, ECT alleges the consortium breached its contract with ECT and seeks damages of approximately R$111 million (the equivalent of approximately $33 million as of December 31, 2017), plus interest, inflation adjustments and attorneys’ fees, as authorized by Brazilian law, which amounts could be significant over time. The original suit sought R$89 million (the equivalent of approximately $27 million as of December 31, 2017) in damages. In October 2013, ECT asserted an additional damage claim of R$22 million (the equivalent of approximately $7 million as of December 31, 2017). In its counterclaim, Solystic alleges ECT breached the contract by wrongfully refusing to accept the equipment Solystic had designed and built and seeks damages of approximately €31 million (the equivalent of approximately $37 million as of December 31, 2017), plus interest, inflation adjustments and attorneys’ fees, as authorized by Brazilian law. The Brazilian court retained an expert to consider certain issues pending before it. On August 8, 2013 and September 10, 2014, the company received reports from the expert, which contain some recommended findings relating to liability and the damages calculations put forth by ECT. Some of the expert’s recommended findings were favorable to the company and others were favorable to ECT. In November 2014, the parties submitted comments on the expert’s most recent report. On June 16, 2015, the court published a decision denying the parties’ request to present oral testimony. At some future point, the court is expected to issue a decision on the parties’ claims and counterclaims that could accept or reject, in whole or in part, the expert’s recommended findings.

The company previously identified and disclosed to the U.S. Government various issues relating primarily to time-charging practices of some employees working on a particular program with remote deployments. The Department of Justice is continuing to investigate this matter, and the company is cooperating in that investigation. Depending upon the ultimate outcome of this matter, the company could be subject to damages, civil or criminal fines, penalties or other sanctions, and suspension or debarment actions; however, we cannot at this point predict the outcome.

We are engaged in remediation activities relating to environmental conditions allegedly resulting from historic operations at the former United States Navy and Grumman facilities in Bethpage, New York. For over 20 years, we have worked closely with the United States Navy, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Health and other federal, state and local governmental authorities, to address legacy environmental conditions in Bethpage. We have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, as included in Note 12, substantial remediation costs related to these environmental conditions. The remediation standards or requirements to which we are subject may change and costs may increase materially. The State of New York has notified us that it intends to seek to impose additional remedial requirements and, among other things, is evaluating natural resource damages. In addition, we are and may become a party to various legal proceedings and disputes related to remediation and/or alleged environmental impacts in Bethpage, including with federal and state entities, local municipalities and water districts, insurance carriers and class action plaintiffs. These Bethpage matters could result in additional costs, fines, penalties, sanctions, compensatory or other damages (including natural resource damages), determinations on allocation, allowability and coverage, and non-monetary relief. We cannot at this time predict or reasonably estimate the potential cumulative outcomes or ranges of possible liability of these aggregate Bethpage matters.

The company is a party to various other investigations, lawsuits, claims, enforcement actions 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, the company does not believe that the outcome of any of these other matters pending against the company is likely to have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position as of December 31, 2017, or its annual results of operations and/or cash flows.