Grumman EF-111 Raven (63-9766)

sorry, the EF-111 Raven looks like this
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=277

you have the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

Sorry, a mentor, but F111 is the correct ICAO code for all variants of the F-111 Aardvark. That is what Habujet entered. After that, he (or she?) has no control over what FA displays as the aircraft type. It's a known issue with FA and gets many complaints here all the time. We all know the system often displays a misleading name for an aircraft type even if the correct ICAO code is entered. For example, the ICAO code for a LOCKHEED C-121A CONSTELLATION (military designation) is: CONI. But when you use that code FA always enters: Lockheed EC-121 Constellation whether it is an "E" version, or not. (Similar to the EF-111 here.) For that matter, FA enters EC-121 even if it is a civilian version of a Coni, i.e. Lockheed L-049/L-649/L-749/C-69 Constellation. In any case, unless the submitter of the photo entered the wrong ICAO code there is no use giving them a hard time about it.

This photo is a copyrighted photo of an F-111A, taken from airhistory.net https://www.airhistory.net/photo/282435/63-9766/39766.

OUCH! FA is getting a carless as congress in getting the facts straight.

The EF-111A Raven is an ECM aircraft with a pod on the vertical stablizer while the F111 Ardvark is a swept wing bomber. see https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f111_aardvark.htm

Misleading data destroys all credibility in using FA as a research/documentation tool.

Yes I know it's not the O.P.'s fault -- I disgruntled with explanations such as you (@Gregg) offer above.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you could be disgruntled with my explanation before I gave it. I thought you might not be aware of the issue. Most of us realize this is not an EF-111. So, if you understood that it wasn't Hubujet's fault, then disregard my previous comment.

The other issue is that if this isn't your photo, Habujet, then why didn't you say so?

I'm disgruntled in that FA changes what the O.P. enters and then substitues errant/misleading information. Factual data be hanged, it's okay to mistate the facts -- HUMBUG. The justfication is always the ICAO which has proven itself untrustworthy. What a shame.

There are those (like myself) qualified in website coding that would love to help correct this ovesight if just asked.

Re AirHistory: I'm a contributor to that site and if you look up Dan Stijovich in their contributors you'll find other photos uploaded on FA as by Habujet. Methinks one and the same person and therefore, hopefully, not someone who regularly breaches copyright.

Soooo.... back on topic... what's the story behind the navy-like hi-viz paint job? Not what you'd expect to see on an F-111, is it?

@Mike - I'm pretty sure this is the original paint scheme from the beginnings of the TFX competition to find a new fighter for both the USAF and the USN. Of course, the Navy ditched the -111 for the F-14, and USAF stuck with it.