My guess is that it would take away of the fun in strategic/tactical planning that is now required to use these units.

Realism is not an option if it breaks the game. Look at artillery for example: Artillery at the time of WWII had a range of about 8km. However, if arty would have an 8 km range in the game, it would be useless.

Balance gives a fun and interresting game. Interceptors with a huge range would be game breaking and thus kill the fun.

I do agree with your note of hardly ever seeying any strategic bombers. My personal reason for not using them is because rockets do their job better, faster and with less risk and cost. I guess most players figure the same.

The biggest reason in not seeying strategic bombers is their counter effectiveness. Makes little sense to destroy the buildings you hope to one day own and use yourself.

Sadly, no good solution exists for destroying buildings being a viable strategy. On this I have made plenty of suggestions myself. But if it does not make sense in a way that it makes players win games, it will not be used as a strategy and so, no strategic bombers are to be seen anywhere.

If interceptors were to have a bigger range they would be used in the same way as they are now. Combined with tactical bombers to destroy units. Since this is already a major part in player used strategies I don't think this aproach needs more help. If they would have a bigger range they could even keep the enemy from using airfields by patroling over an enemy airfield far behind the frontline. So I don't think its a good idea. It would kill balance.

Very good answer, Edepedable! I only disagree with the opinion in this thread that strategic bombers are underpowered. Folks make a mistake building them so seldomly and I suppose that's only because they were indeed very much underpowered compared to tactical bombers before the last balancing update.

But now: OK, tacs are better against land forces, which for sure is the most important parameter. But that's it (except for the small advantage you only need level 2 airfields to construct them).
On the other hand strats have:
- 50% more hitpoints.
- Way higher range, which you shouldn't underestimate. Makes you require a less tight net of airbases. And often makes the difference of reaching a point you otherwise wouldn't. For example the next island. Or maybe that point is an airbase where your enemy is just letting some planes refuel, because he thought it's impossible for you to touch it. Then enjoy.
- The ability to destroy buildings. Agreed, if playing against a weeker enemy you know you'll defeat easily, you wouldn't want to use it, since you're looking forward to own his buildings soon. But against a serious opponent it's fun to destroy his airbases, empty fortresses and maybe even some of his industry/infrastructure while he's offline.
- Give you the option to research nuclear bombers.

So whenever I have more steel than goods, I prefer strats rather than tacs. Balance between these two is just right.

Not exactly what you are talking about, but if you have the money and resources it is a bonus to put different types of planes in the one wing including your strategic bombers and jet fighter to add strength and numbers to the wing whilst still taking full advantage of the SBDE of each unit type.
Obviously the wing will be limited by the range of the shortest range aricraft in the wing.
Some advantages when attacking AA or navy ships is you still get the benefits of the best SBDE from your attacking unit but get the bonus in defence of having more planes to spread the damage amongst from the AA.
I realize in the above example that the Jet fighter are not at their best SBDE.

Who never heard of the famous Turkish airforce based in Finland ?

OK, true: Researching all types of aircraft (except for rocket fighters, usually) is also an option if you have enough oil. I was only talking about the case you want to decide between tacs and strats. There I'd say chances are about 50% you should decide for one or the other. So no point inventing external fuel tanks for fighters to enable them to escort strats.