Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	17. Commitments and Contingencies *Guarantees* In connection with the spin-off of Engility, L-3 entered into a Distribution Agreement and several other agreements that govern certain aspects of L-3’s relationship with Engility, including employee matters, tax matters, transition services, and the future supplier/customer relationship between L-3 and Engility. These agreements generally provide cross-indemnities that, except as otherwise provided, are principally designed to place the financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of each entity with that respective entity. Engility has joint and several liability with L-3 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the consolidated U.S. Federal income taxes of L-3’s consolidated group for taxable periods in which Engility was a part of that group. However, the Tax Matters Agreement specifies the portion of this tax liability for which L-3 and Engility will each bear responsibility, and L-3 and Engility have agreed to indemnify each other against any amounts for which the other is not responsible. The Tax Matters Agreement also allocates responsibility between L-3 and Engility for other taxes, including special rules for allocating tax liabilities in the event that the spin-off is determined not to be tax-free. Though valid as between the parties, the Tax Matters Agreement is not binding on the IRS. *Procurement Regulations* A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with U.S. Government and foreign government customers. U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. The Company is currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings have or could result and give rise to fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. The Company does not currently anticipate that any of these investigations will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, under U.S. Government regulations, an indictment of the Company by a federal grand jury, or an administrative finding against the Company as to its present responsibility to be a U.S. Government contractor or subcontractor, could result in the Company being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or task orders or in a loss of export privileges. A conviction, or an administrative finding against the Company that satisfies the requisite level of seriousness, could result in debarment from contracting with the federal government for a specified term. In addition, all of the Company’s U.S. Government contracts: (1) are subject to audit and various pricing and cost controls, (2) include standard provisions for termination for the convenience of the U.S. Government or for default, and (3) are subject to cancellation if funds for contracts become unavailable. Foreign government contracts generally include comparable provisions relating to terminations for convenience and default, as well as other procurement clauses relevant to the foreign government. *Litigation Matters* The Company is also subject to litigation, proceedings, claims or assessments and various contingent liabilities incidental to its businesses, including those specified below. Furthermore, in connection with certain business acquisitions, the Company has assumed some or all claims against, and liabilities of, such acquired businesses, including both asserted and unasserted claims and liabilities. In accordance with the accounting standard for contingencies, the Company records a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Generally, the loss is recorded at the amount the Company expects to resolve the liability. The estimated amounts of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation are disclosed in Note 8. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At June 28, 2013, the Company did not record any amounts for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the amount of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews these provisions quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. While it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur in one or more of the following matters, unless otherwise stated below, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below for which it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur, an estimate of loss or range of loss is disclosed when such amount or amounts can be reasonably estimated. Although the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters and investigations pending against it, the results of litigation can be difficult to predict, particularly those involving jury trials. Accordingly, our current judgment as to the likelihood of our loss (or our current estimate as to the potential range of loss, if applicable) with respect to any particular litigation matter may turn out to be wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these or other contingencies. Kalitta Air. On January 31, 1997, a predecessor of Kalitta Air filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the trial court) asserting, among other things, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Central Texas Airborne Systems, Inc. (CTAS), a predecessor to L-3 Integrated Systems (L-3 IS), in connection with work performed by a predecessor to CTAS to convert two Boeing 747 aircraft from passenger configuration to cargo freighters. CTAS’ insurance carrier has accepted defense of this matter and has retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurer to dispute its obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event a judgment is ultimately rendered against CTAS. The work at issue in the lawsuit was performed using Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) issued in 1988 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1996, following completion of the work, the FAA issued an airworthiness directive with respect to the STCs that effectively grounded the aircraft. Following two jury trials (in which Kalitta Air did not prevail) and related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Court of Appeals), a third jury trial for this matter began on October 31, 2011, during which Kalitta Air sought damages of approximately $235 million plus an unspecified amount of pre-judgment interest that, in other contexts, has been claimed by Kalitta Air to exceed $240 million. Following the completion of the third trial on November 30, 2011, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of CTAS, finding no negligence on the part of CTAS. The trial court entered a judgment upon the verdict on March 20, 2012. Kalitta Air filed an appeal of the judgment with the Court of Appeals on July 23, 2012. CTAS filed its brief in opposition on January 16, 2013, and Kalitta Air filed its reply brief on June 6, 2013. The parties are awaiting a determination by the Court of Appeals as to the scheduling of oral argument. Bashkirian Airways. On July 1, 2004, lawsuits were filed on behalf of the estates of 31 Russian children in the state courts of Washington, Arizona, California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell, Honeywell TCAS, Thales USA, Thales France, the Company and Aviation Communications & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), which is a joint venture of L-3 and Thales. The suits relate to the crash over southern Germany of a Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov aircraft were 9 crew members and 60 passengers, including 45 children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of two. Both aircraft were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS). Sensing the other aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to descend, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov pilot to climb. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered the Tupelov pilot to descend. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov aircraft into a descent striking the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew and passengers of both planes were lost. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board after the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability based upon the design of the units and the training provided to resolve conflicting commands and seek approximately $315 million in damages, including $150 million in punitive damages. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of this matter and have retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which then dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs representing 30 of the estates re-filed their complaint against ACSS on April 23, 2007 with the Barcelona Court’s Registry in Spain. On March 9, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of approximately $6.7 million, all of which represented compensatory damages. Both ACSS and the plaintiffs appealed the judgment. In May 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of $48 million. ACSS filed an appeal of the judgment with the Supreme Court of Spain on September 28, 2012. On July 1, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the appeal, and the parties are awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. The Company believes that the ruling and the damages awarded are inconsistent with the law and evidence presented, and accordingly, that it is not probable that the Company has incurred a loss with respect to this matter. As of the date of this filing, 11 out of the 30 plaintiffs have released their claims against ACSS in consideration for payments made by the Company’s insurance carriers.

17. Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

In connection with the spin-off of Engility, L-3 entered into a Distribution Agreement and several other agreements that govern certain aspects of L-3’s relationship with Engility, including employee matters, tax matters, transition services, and the future supplier/customer relationship between L-3 and Engility. These agreements generally provide cross-indemnities that, except as otherwise provided, are principally designed to place the financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of each entity with that respective entity. Engility has joint and several liability with L-3 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the consolidated U.S. Federal income taxes of L-3’s consolidated group for taxable periods in which Engility was a part of that group. However, the Tax Matters Agreement specifies the portion of this tax liability for which L-3 and Engility will each bear responsibility, and L-3 and Engility have agreed to indemnify each other against any amounts for which the other is not responsible. The Tax Matters Agreement also allocates responsibility between L-3 and Engility for other taxes, including special rules for allocating tax liabilities in the event that the spin-off is determined not to be tax-free. Though valid as between the parties, the Tax Matters Agreement is not binding on the IRS.

Procurement Regulations

A substantial majority of the Company’s revenues are generated from providing products and services under legally binding agreements or contracts with U.S. Government and foreign government customers. U.S. Government contracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements, and from time to time, agencies of the U.S. Government investigate whether such contracts were and are being conducted in accordance with these requirements. The Company is currently cooperating with the U.S. Government on several investigations from which civil, criminal or administrative proceedings have or could result and give rise to fines, penalties, compensatory and treble damages, restitution and/or forfeitures. The Company does not currently anticipate that any of these investigations will have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, under U.S. Government regulations, an indictment of the Company by a federal grand jury, or an administrative finding against the Company as to its present responsibility to be a U.S. Government contractor or subcontractor, could result in the Company being suspended for a period of time from eligibility for awards of new government contracts or task orders or in a loss of export privileges. A conviction, or an administrative finding against the Company that satisfies the requisite level of seriousness, could result in debarment from contracting with the federal government for a specified term. In addition, all of the Company’s U.S. Government contracts: (1) are subject to audit and various pricing and cost controls, (2) include standard provisions for termination for the convenience of the U.S. Government or for default, and (3) are subject to cancellation if funds for contracts become unavailable. Foreign government contracts generally include comparable provisions relating to terminations for convenience and default, as well as other procurement clauses relevant to the foreign government.

Litigation Matters

The Company is also subject to litigation, proceedings, claims or assessments and various contingent liabilities incidental to its businesses, including those specified below. Furthermore, in connection with certain business acquisitions, the Company has assumed some or all claims against, and liabilities of, such acquired businesses, including both asserted and unasserted claims and liabilities.

In accordance with the accounting standard for contingencies, the Company records a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Generally, the loss is recorded at the amount the Company expects to resolve the liability. The estimated amounts of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation are disclosed in Note 8. Amounts recoverable from insurance contracts or third parties are recorded as assets when deemed probable. At June 28, 2013, the Company did not record any amounts for recoveries from insurance contracts or third parties in connection with the amount of liabilities recorded for pending and threatened litigation. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for its litigation matters. The Company reviews these provisions quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. While it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur in one or more of the following matters, unless otherwise stated below, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of these matters. With respect to the litigation matters below for which it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome may occur, an estimate of loss or range of loss is disclosed when such amount or amounts can be reasonably estimated. Although the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters and investigations pending against it, the results of litigation can be difficult to predict, particularly those involving jury trials. Accordingly, our current judgment as to the likelihood of our loss (or our current estimate as to the potential range of loss, if applicable) with respect to any particular litigation matter may turn out to be wrong. Therefore, it is possible that the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company could be materially adversely affected in any particular period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these or other contingencies.

Kalitta Air. On January 31, 1997, a predecessor of Kalitta Air filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the trial court) asserting, among other things, negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Central Texas Airborne Systems, Inc. (CTAS), a predecessor to L-3 Integrated Systems (L-3 IS), in connection with work performed by a predecessor to CTAS to convert two Boeing 747 aircraft from passenger configuration to cargo freighters. CTAS’ insurance carrier has accepted defense of this matter and has retained counsel, subject to a reservation of rights by the insurer to dispute its obligations under the applicable insurance policies in the event a judgment is ultimately rendered against CTAS. The work at issue in the lawsuit was performed using Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) issued in 1988 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1996, following completion of the work, the FAA issued an airworthiness directive with respect to the STCs that effectively grounded the aircraft. Following two jury trials (in which Kalitta Air did not prevail) and related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Court of Appeals), a third jury trial for this matter began on October 31, 2011, during which Kalitta Air sought damages of approximately $235 million plus an unspecified amount of pre-judgment interest that, in other contexts, has been claimed by Kalitta Air to exceed $240 million. Following the completion of the third trial on November 30, 2011, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of CTAS, finding no negligence on the part of CTAS. The trial court entered a judgment upon the verdict on March 20, 2012. Kalitta Air filed an appeal of the judgment with the Court of Appeals on July 23, 2012. CTAS filed its brief in opposition on January 16, 2013, and Kalitta Air filed its reply brief on June 6, 2013. The parties are awaiting a determination by the Court of Appeals as to the scheduling of oral argument.

Bashkirian Airways. On July 1, 2004, lawsuits were filed on behalf of the estates of 31 Russian children in the state courts of Washington, Arizona, California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell, Honeywell TCAS, Thales USA, Thales France, the Company and Aviation Communications & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), which is a joint venture of L-3 and Thales. The suits relate to the crash over southern Germany of a Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov aircraft were 9 crew members and 60 passengers, including 45 children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of two. Both aircraft were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS). Sensing the other aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to descend, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov pilot to climb. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered the Tupelov pilot to descend. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov aircraft into a descent striking the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew and passengers of both planes were lost. Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board after the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability based upon the design of the units and the training provided to resolve conflicting commands and seek approximately $315 million in damages, including $150 million in punitive damages. The Company’s insurers have accepted defense of this matter and have retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which then dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs representing 30 of the estates re-filed their complaint against ACSS on April 23, 2007 with the Barcelona Court’s Registry in Spain. On March 9, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of approximately $6.7 million, all of which represented compensatory damages. Both ACSS and the plaintiffs appealed the judgment. In May 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of $48 million. ACSS filed an appeal of the judgment with the Supreme Court of Spain on September 28, 2012. On July 1, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the appeal, and the parties are awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. The Company believes that the ruling and the damages awarded are inconsistent with the law and evidence presented, and accordingly, that it is not probable that the Company has incurred a loss with respect to this matter. As of the date of this filing, 11 out of the 30 plaintiffs have released their claims against ACSS in consideration for payments made by the Company’s insurance carriers.