Prowlus wrote:

: Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
: can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

No. The reality has always been that an aircraft designed
to do air combat efficiently must be have good handling
qualities, high power reserves, good armament, robustness,
and spare lifting capacity. Ever since WWI, this has meant
that a good fighter can be very useful in other roles too.
Sopwith Camels made good attack aircraft and even
dive-bombers...

As fighters are the essential aircraft of an air force,
which is is almost impossible to do without, cuts tend
to be made in the other categories. The real onset of this
was during WWII, when fighters became so big and powerful
that they replaced first light and then also medium bombers,
although this process was not completed until after the
war. Naval air forces, that had to parcel out the limited
space on a carrier, were particularly quick to recognize
that a good fighter could be a decent bomber. In the 1930s
dual-role fighters-and-dive-bomber types were fashionable.

With few exceptions, pure fighters have been defensive
interceptors, often all-weather intereceptors with
expensive and fragile electronic systems. Even Spitfires
and Sabres were fitted with bomb racks as soon as their
operators could find the opportunity. These days, equipping
aircraft purely as fighters make little sense, even for
a rich air force such as the USAF; why not exploit all
the capabilities of a very expensive airframe?

--
Emmanuel Gustin