The first production F-22 fighter aircraft for the US Air Force is unveiled in a ceremony in Atlanta. (AFP)

The House action is virtually unprecedented in threatening funding for a major defense program on the verge of production. It reflected growing concerns about cost overruns in the $70 billion F-22 program, the appeal of seemingly cheaper alternatives, and tensions between the Republican-led Congress and the Clinton administration over management of the military.

Caught completely off guard last week when key members of the Appropriations Committee first moved to delete the funding, the Air Force and the plane's prime contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, mounted a fierce last-minute lobbying campaign. They now hope to regain the money when House and Senate members meet in a conference committee to resolve differences between their defense spending bills.

But the House's action casts considerable uncertainty over the Pentagon's long-range plans for a new generation of air warfare weapons. It also raises doubts about the ability of Lockheed Martin, the nation's biggest defense contractor, to remain in the business of designing combat jets.

The last time a major weapons program was killed as it entered production was 1991, when the Navy halted work on the A-12, a carrier-based aircraft that also had suffered cost overruns and technical problems. But the Navy itself -- not the Congress -- initiated the demise of the A-12. And the $6.7 billion that had been spent on the A-12 is dwarfed by the more than $20 billion already expended on developing the F-22.

In an unusual procedural move on the House floor yesterday, F-22 proponents introduced an amendment to restore funding for initial production of the jet, then withdrew the amendment after an hour of debate dominated by arguments in favor of the plane. By skipping a vote on an issue that has split the Republican leadership, the House spared members a decisive showdown and gave House negotiators greater leverage in shaping a compromise with the Senate, which has approved the full Air Force request for $1.8 billion to buy the first six F-22s.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee who has led the attack on the F-22, struck a conciliatory note, promising to reevaluate the troubled Air Force project.

"At the end of the day, we will do everything that is necessary to make certain there is no nation that will threaten us" in the skies, Lewis said.

With little further discussion of the military spending bill, the House passed it, 379 to 45.

Lawmakers have complained for several years that the Pentagon has too many new jet fighters in development -- the Navy's F/A-18E/F and the multiservice Joint Strike Fighter in addition to the F-22. In response, the Pentagon has scaled back its planned purchases, shrinking the F-22 order from 750 to 339 planes. But the Air Force never expected outright elimination of the program it touts as its top procurement priority.

"I don't know of another major program whose cancellation has been initiated by Congress," said Steven Kosiak, a military budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "The odds are still some way will be found to go ahead with the F-22, but we're in sort of uncharted territory now."

While choking off production money, the House bill preserves $1.2 billion for F-22 research and development. And Lewis and his allies insist that their aim is not to cancel the project, but merely to compel a "pause" to consider alternatives.

The Air Force argues that any production delay would be tantamount to killing the program, since restarting manufacturing lines would add about $6 billion and send the F-22's cost soaring above constraints imposed by Congress two years ago.

Pentagon and industry officials lobbied hard to restore the money that the Appropriations Committee cut, disputing charges that the $200 million-a-copy plane is excessively expensive and insisting the aircraft is essential to maintain a U.S. edge over the next generation of Russian and European aircraft and missiles.

The Air Force arranged special briefings for members of Congress and provided detailed lists of F-22 suppliers and the value of their contracts in each state. Lawmakers from states with the most jobs at stake -- Georgia, Connecticut, California and Texas -- spoke on the House floor yesterday, urging colleagues to keep the program alive.

Vance Coffman, Lockheed Martin's chief executive officer, also met personally with Lewis last week but left discouraged, according to several sources.

Defense analysts said cancellation of the F-22 would cut deeply into Lockheed's revenue in the next 15 years. After years of consolidation among defense firms, there are only two remaining American companies that design and manufacture military jets: Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin. A third, Northrop Grumman Corp., largely serves as a supplier to them.

"The House's F-22 decision, if sustained, has the potential to remove one of the nation's few remaining aircraft integrators," said Loren Thompson, a defense specialist with the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank. "Without the F-22, it would be much harder for Lockheed Martin to justify remaining in the military aircraft business."

In addition to targeting the F-22, the Appropriations Committee denounced what it called a disturbing pattern of Pentagon spending on projects never approved by Congress. In recent years, the committee repeatedly has leveled such charges, citing a variety of programs.

In a report accompanying the spending bill, the committee singled out several cases of unauthorized spending, including the start-up of an unspecified secret Air Force program and an effort to buy a military communications satellite. Asked about the criticism, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen told reporters that some of the disputed cases may stem from ambiguous directions provided by conflicting House and Senate legislation. Nonetheless, Cohen acknowledged, "we are bound to have some deficiencies" and pledged to continue working with Congress to resolve any disputes.

Staff writers Juliet Eilperin and John Mintz contributed to this report.