>>63840031 (OP)i'd presume they wouldn't lose them all doing something stupid because they've had to at least kept up on studying modern carrier theory and practice. however, the J-15 is the only plane confirmed launchable by their carriers, which is outclassed by USN carrier planes, the F-18 and F-35.
while JP lacks adequate carriers for carrier vs carrier combat, the F-15J and F-2 is the equivalent of facing off against modern land-based USAF, which puts the J-15 in a compromised position. both of JP's planes in that case would be a fair match for the J-15, if not an overmatch in the case of the F-15J. though again, this is not the JP's naval force, that would instead by F-35's once they're operational, which is an unfortunate overmatch for the J-15. this capability is still in development though, so there's a chance PLAN could take them to task on their own.
UK carriers are slightly dated by this point, saved only by the fact that the F-35 is such an overmatch for the J-15. it's a growing area of concern i'd say, but of course, the UK has allies, and if we're assuming that the PLAN is somehow engaged with all three at once, it would be a rather one-sided affair.
PLAN AWACS has not been thoroughly tested(in any unclassified reporting so far), marking a possible blind spot, as if their naval AWACS is not up to the task, it will rather handily negate the possible bonus of the PL-15, or at least the claimed performance of the PL-15. i will note that i'm unaware of comparable missiles in the JP and UK carrier fleets, but the US has the AIM-174B. the USN is not considered mission capable for a major engagement in both europe and china at the moment, but is considered mission capable to fight on a single front. the PLAN should avoid that matchup.
the real question is why china would bother attempting a blue-water naval engagement against the others, as their territorial aims are much more local.
![9xhvma[1]](/images/k/1750014782906377.jpg)
