If the Sino-Japanese War breaks out now, Japan will be defeated.
The name of the Japanese navy is masturbation team at sea. In fact, it has long been a powerful regional navy.
Japan's technology is more advanced than China's, but don't think that the Japanese navy is really the second in the world. Japan's Aegis is very powerful, but it can only be used for air defense and missiles, not anti-ship. -The Japanese still rely on harpoons with a range of 120km and tomahawks with a range of 120km (the tomahawk with a range of 500km is not exported by Americans). China can take advantage of the long range of missiles to launch missiles at a distance of 300 kilometers to attack the Japanese fleet. -that is to say, if it's just a fleet battle, then the China navy can slowly consume the Japanese fleet outside the attack range of the Japanese fleet. If it is melee, both sides can beat each other, especially so. China bought Japanese-made Japanese-made supersonic anti-ship missiles, but the Japanese relied on tomahawks and harpoons, which were not dominant or even inferior, because harpoons and tomahawks were not as fast as Sino-Russian anti-ship missiles in terms of speed and warhead power. Only the accuracy is better than that of Chinese and Russian anti-ship missiles, and it is only a strength, and there is no world. Moreover, only these two kinds of missiles can't reach the target at the same time under different angles, altitudes, speeds and evasive maneuvers (that is, saturated anti-ship attacks), so it is much easier to intercept them.
With air power, it is not easy for Japanese aircraft to approach the China fleet of 120km, while it is easy for China aircraft to approach the Japanese fleet of 300km. Submarines, I don't believe that 16 Japanese advanced conventional submarines can surpass China's large number of backward submarines+10 above advanced conventional submarines+an unknown number of nuclear submarines. Besides, backward submarines are not hopeless, and some are equipped with submarine-launched anti-ship missiles. Among them, the old Ming-class submarines were loaded with submarine-launched anti-ship missiles and wire-guided torpedo. Japan claims to be the world's first anti-submarine force-100 advanced anti-submarine aircraft, which is estimated to be difficult to realize under the tail of a large number of aircraft in HNA, China. The air force of the Japanese navy is nothing more than those ship-borne helicopters and fixed-wing anti-submarine aircraft, which have no air combat capability.
But fighting Japan and the United States will inevitably involve it. No matter what kind of war it is, even if there is the United States, it will be China's victory off the coast of China (there is absolutely no offshore war with a larger radius than land-based combat aircraft, because the China Navy has no aircraft carrier and will not find its own way). But the price is also very high. Americans will quit the war after suffering certain losses. Otherwise, 1. Americans can't afford to lose. It is impossible to expand the war, which will lead to total war and then nuclear war. 2. Either the U.S. military continues to participate in the war and engage in small-scale local high-intensity skirmishes with China, but the American people can't stand the casualties of American children, so the U.S. military won't keep fighting China for Japan. Although it can fight in Afghanistan for a long time, China is not Afghanistan, and China can cause many times more casualties to the U.S. military than kbfz.
There was only one result. China has gained vested interests (otherwise it will continue to fight), but it still has to spit out a little irrelevant part-giving Americans a little face and giving them a step down and getting benefits. Otherwise, it's bullshit to piss off Americans.
As for helpers, China's helpers are Russians. I will definitely not take part in the war, but only sell weapons to China, but the price will be much higher than usual. At the same time, Russia will make some small moves in Europe. Like Pakistan, North Korea and African black buddies, it is impossible to get involved because of their weak strength. I can't help you except verbal support. Americans also have a lot of helpers, but no one participates. South Korea is the least likely, because in case of war, China will definitely put pressure on South Korea through North Korea. Besides, Korean food is a problem without China's trade (recently in kimchi crisis). Nor can NATO have many countries, most of which are members of the European Union. In recent years, we are competing with the United States for the China market. Which is more important, to participate in other people's wars or to fight for the interests of one's own country? Canada and Australia are too weak to send a few warships and 2000 soldiers, especially small countries in South America.
Mainly Britain, this country is very strange, everyone knows that he is a die-hard ally of the United States, and Americans even sell intercontinental nuclear missiles to Britain. This is the only American ally who enjoys this honor. However, when American enterprises tried to strangle the new China, Britain established diplomatic relations with the new China. When Britain and France launched a war on the Suez Canal, the United States did not hesitate to threaten to use force to force Britain and France to withdraw their troops, and it did not look like an ally. The United States supported Britain in defeating Argentina. It wants to support Britain to rely on Hong Kong to pay back, and Britain has also paid back. Because of the financial crisis, Britain has actually become a second-rate country, although the United States opposes the announcement of reducing military investment and military strength. I don't think it is possible for Britain to go to war. Where is the basis? I don't know, either.