How is any kind of explanation of that battle going to justify it? For one thing, the time discrepancy between Voyager and the Aeon is twice as large as the discrepancy between the NX-01 and the Enterprise-D by a couple centuries. And regardless of how Voyager beat the Aeon, she still beat the Aeon when she shouldn't have. Really, it was very ridiculous to show the battle in the first place. Voyager is basically from the Aeon's dark ages and the battle itself is completely nonsensical (utter proof that technobabble is a crutch). Of course, if the 29th Century tech is really all that advanced, the Aeon should've run circles around such a tactic. Let's keep in mind even today's current rate of technological advances, and those advances are probably going to continue grow ing exponentially, making the tech gap between Voyager and Aeon even LARGER than the NX-01 and E-D. In the grand scheme of things, Voyager's deflector dish is really no different than a 16th century pirate trying to catch an F-14 with a net. I really don't see how anyone can defend Voyager's victory here while bemoaning the notion that idea of the NX-01 doing anything to the Enterprise. That's an inconsistent stream of logic. But then, that's the point of it all. Whoever is writing it has all the power, logistics and technology be damned. It's the same kind of writing that lets Jeff Goldblum with a Macintosh destroy an invading force centuries more advanced than 1996. Thus, to bemoan and belittle anyone for a silly notion but ignoring (or worse yet, allowing and defending) the precedent already set is inconsistent. Why is it okay for one crew to pull off a miracle but a crime if another crew on another show does it?