Harryw
You are obviously not a (heavy) jet driver. Approaches on heavy transports, but also on "lighter" fast jets like fighters are ALWAYS flown with lots of power, up to 85%.
Specific approach speeds have been chosen for many reasons: like the lowest possible with that load and flight conditions (1,3Vs) to reduce landing length, a critical factor in most jet planes. Therefore huge flap types are used (see the B747 and A380) with large deflections, creating lots of lift AND drag.
Another one is speed stability, nothing more difficult is a jet that starts creeping away from its desired approach speed (in both directions) and continues to do so. You keep on juggling the throttles, very nasty.
That can be a difficult one to attain for designers, like the B747-400 was OK with flaps at "30" but definitely more "slippery" with flaps "25". One of the reasons for the Quantas incident at Bangkok, although, like usual, more factors were involved there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1
Jet engines, even the newer ones, still need time to accelerate out of (deep) idle. This can be critical if an immediate Go Around is needed. Carrier based planes do this to the max, as the pilots are trained to select full power upon touchdown, just to have full power if the cable is missed, needing to accelerate out of an idle range would kill them if a cable is missed (bolter).
Accepting an higher final speed because You can;t or won't decelerate is not done in jetflying. Till shortly before touchdown You fight to stick to the approach speed, but NEVER doing that by reducing power to idle. If due to turbulence or wind shear You do end up with an overshoot in speed, You are the deciding part if You GA or think You have enough stopping power on the runway in the given conditions.
Both options have killed pilots and passengers.
So if the design of the plane offers You not enough drag and end up with a too low power setting in certain conditions, like a heavy load or a slight tailwind, planes like the before mentioned F28 have an alternative use of increasing drag with speedbrakes. Specifically the tail mounted ones are less dangerous during final, as they only increase drag and do not kill lift as wing mounted ones do.
The B2 bomber uses "splitable" ailerons to create drag, however I do not know if that is used on final.
https://theaviationist.com/wp-conten...13/09/B-2A.jpg
As has been said before in this thread, it is not always Your mistake to end up with too much energy, mostly it is caused by other traffic or ATC. Not implicating it is their fault, but as they handle lots of traffic, it cannot always be done with the specific performance of ONE of their "clients" in mind.
Certain airports like Santiago de Chile have the Andes mountains block an optimum descent path, once You cleared the tops, all drag possible was needed to kill energy.
Personally I found straight in approaches the most difficult ones, especially if the traffic was light and ATC did not gave a s**t how You did it with what speed. Curved approaches offer way more options to correct both ways.
To fly an optimal descent in which You have used the kinetic energy to its max is to end up, at or just past point "D" with gear and final flaps coming down and engines spooling up to their normal approach settings. Without ending up in a rushed approach.
I was a line check pilot for a long time and witnessed many crews flying textbook descents and approaches, sometimes without any electronic help, during visual approaches.
Deciding when to crank out the next flap setting is sometimes wonderful to witness how and when that is done. Some pilots just have a wonderful "3D" insight, and are experts in using that, it was a joy to fly with those pros.