Investigations, Claims and Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
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. On February 16, 2018, both the company and the United States filed motions to dismiss many of the claims and counterclaims in whole or in part. The United States also filed a motion seeking to amend its answer and counterclaim, including to reduce its counterclaim to approximately $193 million, which the court granted on June 11, 2018. On October 17, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions to dismiss. On December 17, 2018, the court issued a Scheduling Order, proposed by the parties, providing for the parties to engage in mediation through March 1, 2019, and for pretrial activities then to resume, if and as necessary, with trial to commence on or about September 23, 2019. 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 $29 million as of December 31, 2018), 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 $23 million as of December 31, 2018) in damages. In October 2013, ECT asserted an additional damage claim of R$22 million (the equivalent of approximately $6 million as of December 31, 2018). 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 $35 million as of December 31, 2018), 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. In a decision dated November 13, 2018, the trial court ruled in ECT’s favor and awarded damages of R$41 million (the equivalent of approximately $11 million as of December 31, 2018) against Solystic and its consortium partners, with that amount to be adjusted for inflation and interest from November 2004 through any appeal, in accordance with the Manual of Calculations of the Federal Justice, as well as attorneys’ fees. Once the court officially publishes the decision, the parties will have 10 days to file a motion for clarification with the trial court or 30 days to file an appeal with the intermediate court of appeals. 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. In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Department of Justice concluded its investigations as to the company and settled the matter with the company. As part of the settlement, the company paid a total of $30 million, largely in restitution and repayment, and agreed to continue to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation. 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 and individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage. 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. On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital ATK’s Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. On August 8, 2018, plaintiffs sought leave to file an additional amended complaint; defendants filed an opposition. The parties engaged in mediation on November 6, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to agreement on additional terms and to court approval. On January 15, 2019, the court issued an order setting a schedule for final settlement approval proceedings. Consistent with that order, on January 30, 2019, the parties submitted a joint motion for preliminary settlement approval, with supporting documents. The schedule suggests a final approval settlement hearing in the second quarter of 2019. The company is also negotiating with and pursuing coverage litigation against various of its insurance carriers. The company intends vigorously to defend itself in connection with these matters. We currently expect related contingencies will continue to be included in the company’s measurement period adjustments of the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the Merger (see Note 2). The SEC is investigating Orbital ATK’s historical accounting practices relating to the restatement of Orbital’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarterly periods ended July 5, 2015 and October 4, 2015 described in the Transition Report on Form 10-K for the nine-month period ending December 31, 2015 previously filed on March 15, 2016. The SEC is also investigating matters relating to a voluntary disclosure Orbital ATK made concerning the restatement described in Orbital ATK’s Form 10-K/A for the nine-month period ending December 31, 2015 filed on February 24, 2017. The ultimate outcome of these matters, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time and the company intends to continue to cooperate with the SEC. The company is a party to various other investigations, lawsuits, arbitration, 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, 2018, 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. On February 16, 2018, both the company and the United States filed motions to dismiss many of the claims and counterclaims in whole or in part. The United States also filed a motion seeking to amend its answer and counterclaim, including to reduce its counterclaim to approximately $193 million, which the court granted on June 11, 2018. On October 17, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions to dismiss. On December 17, 2018, the court issued a Scheduling Order, proposed by the parties, providing for the parties to engage in mediation through March 1, 2019, and for pretrial activities then to resume, if and as necessary, with trial to commence on or about September 23, 2019. 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 $29 million as of December 31, 2018), 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 $23 million as of December 31, 2018) in damages. In October 2013, ECT asserted an additional damage claim of R$22 million (the equivalent of approximately $6 million as of December 31, 2018). 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 $35 million as of December 31, 2018), 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. In a decision dated November 13, 2018, the trial court ruled in ECT’s favor and awarded damages of R$41 million (the equivalent of approximately $11 million as of December 31, 2018) against Solystic and its consortium partners, with that amount to be adjusted for inflation and interest from November 2004 through any appeal, in accordance with the Manual of Calculations of the Federal Justice, as well as attorneys’ fees. Once the court officially publishes the decision, the parties will have 10 days to file a motion for clarification with the trial court or 30 days to file an appeal with the intermediate court of appeals.

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. In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Department of Justice concluded its investigations as to the company and settled the matter with the company. As part of the settlement, the company paid a total of $30 million, largely in restitution and repayment, and agreed to continue to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation.

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 and individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage. 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.

On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital ATK’s Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. On August 8, 2018, plaintiffs sought leave to file an additional amended complaint; defendants filed an opposition. The parties engaged in mediation on November 6, 2018. On December 27, 2018, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to agreement on additional terms and to court approval. On January 15, 2019, the court issued an order setting a schedule for final settlement approval proceedings. Consistent with that order, on January 30, 2019, the parties submitted a joint motion for preliminary settlement approval, with supporting documents. The schedule suggests a final approval settlement hearing in the second quarter of 2019. The company is also negotiating with and pursuing coverage litigation against various of its insurance carriers. The company intends vigorously to defend itself in connection with these matters. We currently expect related contingencies will continue to be included in the company’s measurement period adjustments of the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the Merger (see Note 2).

The SEC is investigating Orbital ATK’s historical accounting practices relating to the restatement of Orbital’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarterly periods ended July 5, 2015 and October 4, 2015 described in the Transition Report on Form 10-K for the nine-month period ending December 31, 2015 previously filed on March 15, 2016. The SEC is also investigating matters relating to a voluntary disclosure Orbital ATK made concerning the restatement described in Orbital ATK’s Form 10-K/A for the nine-month period ending December 31, 2015 filed on February 24, 2017. The ultimate outcome of these matters, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time and the company intends to continue to cooperate with the SEC.

The company is a party to various other investigations, lawsuits, arbitration, 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, 2018, or its annual results of operations and/or cash flows.