Agreed. Much better expenditure than the boating scene, and much better way to establish the crew as awesome ass-kickers.
Sometimes, action for the sake of action is stupid, but in this case it makes sense.
I'm skeptical of that. It seems to me challenging to go directly from a scene of a starship being ravaged and blown up by a space warp thing to a scene of a starship being ravaged and blown up by other starship while keeping it clear that there's a century that's passed between the two. Yes, yes, Trek Fans will have no trouble spotting that in one case it's the Enterprise B getting blown up and in the other case it's the Enterprise D getting blown up, but visually, especially with the quick cuts and dark scenes endemic to modern action and battle scenes, it's going to be very hard to avoid confusing the audience.
Now, they could manage this. In ``All Good Things'' the (pretty much) same team managed to split the action over three separate time periods, two of them with not much visual distinction between them, without getting confusing. They were able to lay out in story what was happening before the audience saw it, and to include a narrative hook that marked ``time period about to change''. I'm not sure what would be so clean and clear a break on-film between the ship-battling-storm and the ship-battling-ships scenes, though.
Cutting from after-the-storm to the holodeck-sailing-ship does
, whatever its dramatic flaws, read very cleanly.