General Dynamics Aardvark

[Double T]

Could someone explain to me how the F-111 ended up with that "F-for FIGHTER" designation?
While it certainly matured into a credible all-weather attack platform with it's variable-geometry wings and terrain-hugging radar...
it was never a fighter aircraft by any stretch.
The RAAF is still flying the C-variant.

Tim

[GregP]

The F-111 started out as the TFX program (Tactical Fighter eXperimental). Then they decided it should do EVERYTHING, so they added a bomb bay. Most of the changes and additions were at the behest of teh US AirForce.

By the time they were done, it was an attack plane or bomber.

Also, at the time it was first flying in the U.S. inventory, it was the only aircraft in the inventory that could maintain supersonic speed in a 5G turn. Evertything else bled off energy quickly and became subsonic quickly. It wasn't until the F-15 / F-16 showed up that that capabilty was duplicated.

[Double T]

Greg:
Yup... at the time, USAF contracts insisted on an airframe that could do every conceivable job. I also recall the F-111 was developed to be used jointly by both the Air Force and US NAVY.
I don't recall the F-111 ever making it into USN service... perhaps the design was hamstrung in it's ability to conform to two, unique requirements. (Might also explain that unconventional looking main landing gear...)
I wasn't aware the F-111 was the first aircraft to maintain supersonic speed in a 5g turn.

Tim

[Pioneer]

It also went from its original envisaged 60,000lb weight to close to 100,000lb in weight when the final design was finished!
Have you seen the competing Boeing Model 818 design?

Regards
Pioneer

[Johnny .45]

Yeah, it was a good idea in some ways, to save costs by not only making a plane that could be used by all services, but could be made in different versions, i.e. a "jack-of-all-trades". But it didn't work out so well in the end. It ended up as a good fighter-bomber, but I think that was more to give it SOME job after all the money they spent developing it (which was a very considerable amount). Let's say that if they had canceled the program, they could have easily found another plane to fill the slot. Certainly they spent a majority of the money of capabilities that it never needed at all!
I still reserve judgment on whether it was ever actually INTENDED to work, or if it was just to prove that the military really DID need all those different types of planes. It's probably just my paranoid tendencies talking, but I have to wonder sometimes...he US certainly seems to profit from spending lots of money on new equipment.
So either it was a honest attempt at saving money that failed, or it was a not-so-honest attempt to prove that the USAF and USN really needed their own fighters and bombers...in any case, as a money-saver, it failed. The program went way, way over cost, and in the end they had to make the F-14 and F-15 anyway. So, you decide for yourself...misguided policy, or misused authority.
I don't know why you say that it wasn't a fighter though...it is more like a fighter than a bomber. The only things that are really "un-fighterish" about it are the side-by-side seating and the bomb bay, and neither of those necessarily preclude being a fighter. It would be unorthodox, and the seating would make dogfighting visibility pretty poor, but it COULD have been a fighter. Especially considering that it was a product of the time, when they thought dogfighting was obsolete. It's certainly big, but so aren't the Tomcat and F-15.
The problem with the F-111 (cockpit aside) is that it had poor engines, and gained too much weight during development. That made it a bit sluggish in agility, but with radar and missiles it would still be a fighter. It certainly wouldn't seem right to give it a "B" designation. I'd guess that after Congress gave up all that money for a super-fighter, changing it to the "A-111" would make some people angry. Once it was all established in service, they went as far as to make the strategic-bomber variant the "FB-111". I guess it's not really that unusual...they called the F-117 a "fighter" rather than the "A-117" (although that may be a "disinformation" thing as well).
So, compared to what we think of as a "fighter", the F-111 seems odd, but if things had gone better there's no reason that it couldn't have been one. I mean, what would you call a plane like the Missileer? It wasn't a fighter...it was a big, subsonic missile-carrier, but it's sole purpose was to shoot down enemy aircraft...so what would you call it? It's not an attack craft, it's not a bomber or recon plane. So what's left but to call it a "fighter" or to go with the "Utility" designation?