The recent and unexpected live-fire naval exercise conducted by China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in the Tasman Sea has introduced a new dimension to the evolving security landscape of the Indo-Pacific. This rare demonstration of Chinese maritime firepower disrupted commercial air traffic, raised concerns among regional security officials, and underscored Beijing’s increasing naval reach beyond its immediate periphery. The incident’s significance extends well beyond a singular military maneuver, reflecting broader strategic shifts, rising geopolitical tensions, and an evolving contest for influence between China and Western-aligned nations, particularly Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
Table: China’s Recent Naval Exercise in the Tasman Sea – Detailed Analysis
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Event | Live-fire naval exercise conducted by China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in the Tasman Sea |
| Geopolitical Significance | Expansion of China’s naval reach beyond traditional periphery, signaling increasing military influence in Indo-Pacific |
| Countries Impacted | Australia, New Zealand, United States, Indo-Pacific allies |
| Primary Vessels Involved | Type 055 Destroyer (Zunyi) – 13,000-ton displacement, stealth design, 180 meters length, 112 missile launch cells (HQ-9 anti-aircraft, YJ-18 anti-ship, CJ-10 cruise missiles) Type 054A Frigate (Hengyang) – Multi-role combat capabilities Type 903 Replenishment Ship (Weishanhu) – Logistics support for extended blue-water operations |
| Exercise Location | Approximately 400 nautical miles southeast of Sydney, Australia |
| Disruptions Caused | Forced rerouting of commercial flights (Emirates, Qantas, Air New Zealand); Regulatory warnings from Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) |
| Operational Expansion | Indicates China’s prioritization of power projection beyond the first and second island chains |
| China’s Fleet Growth (2010-2023) | Increased from ~220 combat-ready vessels (2010) to over 360 (2023), surpassing U.S. Navy in total hull count |
| Naval Infrastructure Development | – Over 12 new naval bases and port facilities supporting blue-water operations – Strategic bases: Yulin Naval Base (Hainan) – submarine pens, logistical support – Commercial ports with military potential: Hambantota (Sri Lanka), Gwadar (Pakistan) |
| Immediate Australian Military Response | Maritime surveillance aircraft and naval vessels monitored exercise but did not observe live fire directly |
| Technological Superiority of PLAN vs. RAN | PLAN Type 055 destroyer has 112 VLS cells, significantly outgunning Australia’s Hobart-class destroyer (48 VLS cells) |
| Australia’s Countermeasures | – AUKUS Agreement: Acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) for stealth operations (operational by early 2030s) – Naval Modernization: Investments in MQ-4C Triton drones, long-range anti-ship missile systems |
| Strategic Messaging & Psychological Warfare | – Lack of diplomatic notification suggests controlled unpredictability – Follows pattern of China’s 2022 laser-targeting incident against Australian P-8A Poseidon aircraft |
| China’s Global Military Expansion | – 78% increase in combat-ready naval fleet (2013–2024) – Shipbuilding rate: Over 1.2 million tons of naval displacement annually since 2017 |
| Strategic Maritime Logistics Network | – 19+ overseas ports identified as dual-use facilities – Major military bases: Djibouti, Gwadar (Pakistan), Ream (Cambodia) |
| Economic Implications | – Over 90% of Australia’s trade volume transits through Tasman Sea – PLAN’s presence could disrupt critical shipping lanes |
| China’s Economic Coercion Tactics | – 2020-2021 trade dispute with Australia: Chinese tariffs on coal, wine, barley → Estimated $20B economic loss for Australia |
| Australia’s Economic Counterstrategy | – Strengthening trade with India, Japan, European Union – Increased participation in Indo-Pacific security frameworks (Quad, joint patrols, intelligence-sharing) |
| China’s Military-Navy Doctrine Shift | – PLAN transitioning from regional defense to expeditionary power with sustained global reach |
| Regional Diplomatic Fallout | – Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles: Criticized lack of prior notification – PM Anthony Albanese: Faced domestic pressure for stronger response |
| Historical Pattern of PLAN Activity | – 2022: Accusations of PLAN warship targeting RAAF P-8A Poseidon with a military-grade laser – South China Sea: Repeated confrontations with U.S./allied forces |
| China’s Advanced Naval Weaponry | – DF-21D / DF-26 “Carrier Killer” Missiles (range: 2,500 km) – J-16 Fighter Flares against Australian P-8A (Sept 2024) |
| Western Military Responses | – AUKUS: Australia’s $368B nuclear submarine program – Japan: First carrier deployment since WWII – U.S. Indo-Pacific Command: Increased maritime surveillance & drills (47% rise since 2021) |
| Long-Term Strategic Consequences | – Normalization of PLAN operations in Western-influenced zones – Tactical pressure on Australia, U.S., Indo-Pacific allies |
| Future Chinese Naval Deployments | – Potential expansion: Southern Ocean, waters near U.S. territory of Guam – Integration of aircraft carriers into far-seas operations |
| Key Takeaways | – PLAN’s Tasman Sea deployment signals a permanent shift in Indo-Pacific security balance – Australia and allies must accelerate defense modernization and unify military-diplomatic strategy |
Unprecedented Naval Presence in the Region
The PLAN’s deployment of the Type 055 destroyer Zunyi, the Type 054A frigate Hengyang, and the Type 903 replenishment ship Weishanhu marked a notable escalation in Chinese maritime activity near Australia. While PLAN vessels have previously ventured into the Pacific, this flotilla’s journey into the Tasman Sea—an area historically dominated by Western naval forces—signifies a calculated projection of power. The Type 055, often classified as a cruiser due to its displacement exceeding 12,000 tons, represents one of the most advanced warships in China’s fleet, equipped with a sophisticated array of radar systems and vertical launch cells capable of firing surface-to-air, anti-ship, and land-attack missiles. The Hengyang, a multi-role frigate, and Weishanhu, a replenishment vessel, support extended operations, enabling China’s navy to sustain blue-water capabilities far from its traditional areas of operation.
🇨🇳 Dalian Shipyard launches the tenth Type 055 destroyer.
— ShanghaiPanda (@thinking_panda) July 12, 2024
13,000 tons of displacement (25% larger than 🇺🇸Ticonderoga class);
Stealth design;
180 meters in length;
112 missile launch cells capable of operating HQ-9 anti-aircraft, YJ-18 anti-ship, and CJ-10 cruise missiles. pic.twitter.com/1Hb37bGhoA
The Strategic Implications of China’s Naval Expansion in the Tasman Sea
The operational expansion of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) into the Tasman Sea signals a recalibration of Beijing’s long-term military strategy, reflecting an evolving doctrine that prioritizes power projection beyond the first and second island chains. The implications of this maneuver are multifaceted, touching upon military preparedness, regional deterrence architectures, and the recalibration of existing security alliances in response to China’s expanding maritime footprint.
The Unannounced Live-Fire Drill and Its Immediate Fallout
China’s decision to conduct live-fire exercises in international waters off Australia’s east coast without prior diplomatic notification drew sharp responses from Australian and New Zealand defense officials. Civil aviation authorities and commercial airlines, including Emirates, Qantas, and Air New Zealand, were forced to reroute flights after receiving airborne warnings from the Chinese fleet. The affected area, approximately 400 miles southeast of Sydney, momentarily became a zone of heightened risk for civilian aviation, prompting regulatory advisories from Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The specifics of the live-fire drill remain unclear, though reports suggest the Chinese flotilla deployed a floating target—a common practice for naval gunnery training. Australian military assets, including maritime surveillance aircraft and naval vessels, monitored the exercise but did not directly observe weapons being fired. The lack of transparency surrounding the event raised immediate concerns over China’s adherence to established norms of military engagement, reinforcing perceptions of an increasingly assertive Chinese defense posture.
Quantitative Analysis of China’s Naval Growth
Empirical data on China’s naval expansion highlights an exponential increase in both fleet size and mission complexity. In 2010, the PLAN operated approximately 220 combat-ready vessels; by 2023, this number had surged past 360, outstripping the U.S. Navy in total hull count. Among these, the expansion of high-end surface combatants—such as the Type 055 destroyers, Type 052D guided-missile destroyers, and Type 075 amphibious assault ships—has facilitated extended operational ranges, allowing for deployments deep into the Pacific and beyond.
The PLAN’s investment in naval infrastructure parallels its fleet expansion. China has constructed over a dozen new naval bases and port facilities capable of accommodating blue-water operations. Notable among these is Hainan’s Yulin Naval Base, equipped with extensive submarine pens and long-range logistical support. Additionally, commercial ports such as Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan have been identified as potential dual-use facilities, offering Beijing a strategic foothold along critical maritime corridors. This growing logistical network provides the necessary sustainment capacity for far-seas operations, reducing reliance on vulnerable mainland supply lines.
Tactical Repercussions for Australian and Allied Naval Forces
China’s ability to operate within close proximity of Australia forces a recalibration of regional defense postures. Historically, the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has relied on a layered maritime defense strategy, leveraging forward-deployed assets in coordination with allied forces. However, the increasing frequency of PLAN deployments within the region threatens to neutralize Australia’s conventional deterrence calculus.
Current RAN fleet capabilities are significantly outmatched in terms of ship count and technological parity. The RAN operates approximately 50 vessels, with its largest surface combatant being the Hobart-class air warfare destroyer. By contrast, the Type 055 destroyer, which China deployed in the Tasman Sea, boasts 112 vertical launch system (VLS) cells capable of firing surface-to-air, anti-ship, and land-attack missiles. This presents a scenario wherein China’s naval forces could theoretically impose localized sea denial conditions against smaller regional navies without immediate U.S. intervention.
To counteract this shift, Australia has pursued major defense procurement initiatives, particularly under the AUKUS framework. The forthcoming acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) will enhance the RAN’s ability to conduct stealth operations in contested waters, although these assets will not be operational until the early 2030s. In the interim, Canberra has accelerated efforts to modernize its naval aviation capabilities, investing in MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones and long-range anti-ship missile systems to enhance maritime domain awareness and strike capacity.
Strategic Messaging and Psychological Warfare
Beyond its direct military implications, China’s live-fire exercise in the Tasman Sea serves a broader strategic messaging function. The deliberate lack of prior diplomatic notification aligns with Beijing’s pattern of controlled unpredictability—leveraging military maneuvers to test response protocols and psychological resilience among regional adversaries. This echoes previous incidents in which Chinese forces engaged in grey-zone operations, such as the 2022 laser-targeting incident involving an Australian P-8A Poseidon aircraft.
The timing of this exercise, closely following bilateral defense talks, suggests an intentional signaling mechanism. By conducting high-profile operations immediately after diplomatic engagements, China reinforces the perception that its military calculus remains independent of political dialogue. This approach reflects elements of Sun Tzu’s doctrine of strategic deception, wherein the adversary is kept in a constant state of uncertainty, compelled to react without a clear assessment of Beijing’s long-term objectives.
Economic and Trade Implications of an Expanded PLAN Presence
China’s maritime presence in the Tasman Sea does not solely impact military considerations; it carries significant economic ramifications. The Tasman Sea functions as a crucial conduit for Australia’s trade networks, with over 90% of its seaborne trade volume transiting through this region. A strengthened Chinese naval footprint raises concerns over potential disruptions to critical shipping lanes, particularly in scenarios where diplomatic tensions escalate into coercive economic measures.
Historical precedents provide insight into Beijing’s potential use of maritime leverage as an economic tool. During the 2020-2021 trade dispute with Australia, China imposed sweeping restrictions on Australian coal, wine, and barley exports, costing Australian industries an estimated $20 billion in lost revenue. While direct naval interdictions remain unlikely in peacetime, the implicit threat of increased military presence near vital shipping routes could serve as a deterrence mechanism, compelling regional actors to adopt more cautious trade policies toward China.
To mitigate such risks, Australia has intensified efforts to diversify its trade dependencies. Initiatives to strengthen economic ties with India, Japan, and the European Union have gained momentum, with bilateral trade agreements prioritizing strategic supply chain resilience. Moreover, Canberra has explored greater participation in Indo-Pacific security frameworks such as the Quad to bolster economic and maritime stability through joint naval patrols and intelligence-sharing initiatives.
Long-Term Implications for Indo-Pacific Stability
The deployment of PLAN forces into the Tasman Sea represents a pivotal shift in the Indo-Pacific security architecture. China’s ability to sustain military operations at such distances underscores a fundamental transformation in its naval doctrine—from a historically defensive force to an expeditionary power capable of sustained operations in high-risk environments. This marks a departure from previous defensive postures and places additional strategic pressure on Western-aligned nations.
For Australia, the immediate challenge lies in bridging the capability gap until next-generation defense platforms become operational. While AUKUS represents a long-term solution, interim measures such as increased military collaboration with the United States, expanded intelligence-sharing with Japan, and enhanced surveillance operations will be critical in ensuring regional stability.
For China, this exercise serves as a validation of its ability to operate in contested waters without immediate pushback. If the international response remains tepid, Beijing may perceive this as tacit acceptance of expanded PLAN deployments beyond the first island chain. Future iterations of such exercises may incorporate larger task groups, featuring aircraft carriers and strategic bombers, further cementing China’s status as a Pacific power capable of operating well beyond its immediate periphery.
The Tasman Sea drill may have been an isolated event, but its broader implications will reverberate across strategic circles for years to come. The world is now witnessing a fundamental shift in the Indo-Pacific balance of power, and the response of regional actors will determine the trajectory of security dynamics in the decades ahead.
Guess the Aussie leadership also doesn't understand that the Type 054 frigate and Type 055 Destroyer carry enough firepower to take out the whole Australian navy and probably it's air force as wellhttps://t.co/qH0mQj9deJ
— StarBoySAR 🇭🇰 🇨🇳 🥭 (@StarboySAR) February 22, 2025
Political and Diplomatic Ramifications
The unannounced nature of the exercise provoked diplomatic pushback from Canberra and Wellington. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles publicly criticized Beijing’s lack of prior notification, emphasizing that Australia typically provides at least 12 to 24 hours’ notice before conducting similar drills. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, while downplaying immediate security threats, faced domestic scrutiny over his government’s response, with opposition leaders calling for a firmer stance against China’s provocative actions.
Similarly, New Zealand’s Defense Minister Judith Collins expressed concern over the flotilla’s presence, highlighting the absence of Chinese diplomatic outreach to explain the deployment’s objectives. The timing of the exercise—just days after a high-level strategic dialogue between Australian and Chinese military officials in Beijing—further complicated bilateral defense relations, raising questions about China’s commitment to fostering military transparency.
The Broader Trend: Chinese Naval Activity in the Indo-Pacific
China’s military footprint in the Indo-Pacific has expanded considerably in recent years. In 2022, Australian officials accused a Chinese warship of targeting a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-8A Poseidon aircraft with a military-grade laser, an incident that Canberra deemed “dangerous and reckless.” Chinese intelligence-gathering ships have also been spotted monitoring Australian military exercises, underscoring a persistent pattern of strategic probing.
The South China Sea remains the epicenter of China’s assertive naval posture. Repeated confrontations with U.S. and allied forces—such as close encounters between Chinese fighter jets and foreign reconnaissance aircraft—illustrate Beijing’s willingness to challenge established norms of freedom of navigation. The most recent example, where a Chinese J-16 fighter deployed flares in front of an Australian P-8A over the South China Sea, exemplifies the heightened risk of unintended escalation.
In a documentary, China released a real footage of PLA J16 intercepting Australian P-8A Poseidon by releasing IR decoy flare.
— Li Zexin (@XH_Lee23) September 13, 2024
pic.twitter.com/x8h0C9ESZX
The AUKUS Factor and Australia’s Response
Australia has been actively modernizing its defense capabilities in response to China’s growing military presence. The AUKUS security pact, announced in 2021, has set the stage for Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, a move widely interpreted as an effort to counterbalance China’s naval expansion. The first of these submarines, expected to be operational in the early 2030s, will significantly enhance Australia’s underwater warfare capabilities, allowing for extended patrols across the Indo-Pacific.
Beyond submarines, Australia has also increased its cooperation with the United States, hosting rotational deployments of American bombers and expanding joint military exercises. The U.S. Marine Corps’ presence in Darwin and the planned construction of additional military infrastructure further solidify Australia’s role as a key Western military hub in the Pacific.
China’s unannounced live-fire drill serves as a precursor to a broader strategic contest in the Pacific. The PLAN’s ability to operate in distant waters signals an era where Beijing is no longer content with a purely defensive maritime posture. Future deployments are likely to include larger task forces, more frequent exercises, and the integration of aircraft carriers into PLAN operations beyond the South China Sea.
For Australia and its allies, this incident reinforces the necessity of robust deterrence strategies, enhanced intelligence-sharing, and a unified approach to countering coercive maritime behavior. As China continues to assert itself in the Indo-Pacific, regional actors must navigate a complex security environment where strategic signaling, military readiness, and diplomatic engagement will determine the balance of power in the years ahead.
Unannounced Chinese naval drills in the Tasman Sea, roughly 400 nautical miles off Sydney's coast, have reportedly disrupted air traffic in the region – this visual plots the incident area, along with known flight routes & air traffic in the region during the exercise today pic.twitter.com/mbP3fycWnn
— Damien Symon (@detresfa_) February 21, 2025
China’s Expanding Military Doctrine and the Global Response
China’s naval maneuvers in the Tasman Sea represent a paradigmatic shift in global military strategy, demonstrating an evolution in power projection that is not merely about regional dominance but a broader attempt to redefine the international balance of power. A thorough, uninhibited analysis of China’s strategy requires an evaluation of its military-industrial capacity, geopolitical ambitions, and the long-term global security implications of its rapid naval expansion. The systematic growth of its maritime capabilities represents not just an increase in fleet numbers but a sophisticated restructuring of force projection across multiple strategic theaters.
The Data Behind China’s Military Surge: Unparalleled Quantitative Growth
Statistical analysis of China’s military expansion provides a startling image of how aggressively the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has developed its operational reach. In the past decade alone, the PLAN has increased its combat-ready fleet by 78%, rising from approximately 205 vessels in 2013 to over 365 by early 2024. Comparatively, the United States Navy, while technologically superior, has seen only a 2% increase in its deployable fleet during the same period. The disparity in shipbuilding capacity is equally staggering: China’s shipyards are producing vessels at nearly double the rate of U.S. shipyards, with an estimated annual production of over 1.2 million tons of naval displacement since 2017. Additionally, China’s naval aviation wing has expanded significantly, with over 600 carrier-capable fighter aircraft projected by 2030.
Further dissecting this rapid expansion, China’s acquisition of advanced destroyers, amphibious assault ships, and aircraft carriers has positioned it to conduct sustained operations far beyond its territorial waters. The commissioning of the Fujian aircraft carrier, a domestically built supercarrier with electromagnetic launch capabilities comparable to the U.S. Navy’s Ford-class carriers, highlights China’s ambition to establish carrier battle groups capable of global deployment. This development directly challenges the existing naval superiority of the United States and its allies, ensuring that China can now project power in strategic locations where Western dominance was once unchallenged.
The PLAN’s development of stealth technologies, anti-submarine warfare capabilities, and unmanned naval systems further underscores its long-term ambitions. In particular, the Type 076-class drone carrier, currently under development, aims to integrate AI-driven swarm drone warfare into China’s maritime doctrine, effectively increasing its operational capabilities without requiring additional crew deployment.
The Geopolitical Motivations Driving China’s Actions
Beyond raw military expansion, China’s naval strategies align with a calculated geopolitical doctrine aimed at achieving maritime supremacy in multiple regions. The PLAN’s movements in the Tasman Sea are part of a broader strategy to exert influence over maritime corridors essential for global trade. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has led to substantial Chinese investment in overseas port infrastructure, is increasingly serving a dual-purpose military function. Over 38% of global maritime trade routes are now linked to Chinese-operated or influenced ports, allowing Beijing to exert both economic and strategic leverage.
A deeper evaluation of China’s naval logistics network indicates that at least 19 overseas facilities, originally established under commercial agreements, have been retrofitted to support military operations. Djibouti, for example, now houses China’s first official overseas military base, complete with advanced docking capabilities for nuclear submarines and air defense systems. Future strategic locations, such as Pakistan’s Gwadar and Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base, have been earmarked as potential deployment hubs, which will further facilitate PLAN’s ability to sustain operations beyond the first and second island chains.
China’s Strategic Goal: Disrupting the Western Maritime Order
The Chinese military’s actions are not isolated incidents but part of a systemic effort to challenge the existing Western-dominated security framework. The fundamental aim appears to be the normalization of PLAN operations in historically Western-influenced maritime zones. The absence of diplomatic notifications before military exercises, particularly in regions where China has no immediate security threats, aligns with a long-term objective: desensitization.
By repeatedly operating near critical Western naval and commercial assets, China seeks to force a gradual acceptance of its military presence. This tactic was previously observed in the South China Sea, where incremental militarization of artificial islands—despite initial denials—resulted in the establishment of permanent Chinese military installations. A similar approach now appears to be unfolding in the wider Pacific, where sustained deployments aim to erode opposition through sheer persistence.
The Economic and Strategic Calculations Behind Chinese Maritime Power Projection
The economic dimensions of China’s maritime strategy cannot be overlooked. Control over crucial maritime chokepoints grants China a significant advantage in economic statecraft, particularly in its ability to apply coercive trade policies against rival economies. The Malacca Strait, through which approximately 60% of China’s oil imports pass, remains a focal point of its naval presence. Expansion into the Tasman Sea serves a similar function—placing China closer to major raw material suppliers such as Australia while reinforcing its influence over key shipping routes connecting the Indo-Pacific with South America and Africa.
China’s naval rise has also coincided with an increase in economic coercion tactics, leveraging military presence to secure advantageous trade agreements. The pattern observed in the South China Sea, where Chinese military power has been used to intimidate smaller nations into resource-sharing agreements, could foreseeably be replicated elsewhere. Countries heavily dependent on maritime trade, such as New Zealand and Indonesia, may face increased pressure to adjust their foreign policy stances in accordance with China’s strategic objectives.
The Risks and Countermeasures: Western Responses and Strategic Realignments
The intensification of China’s naval operations has not gone unnoticed by Western powers, prompting a reassessment of maritime security policies. The United States, Australia, and Japan have collectively increased their naval budgets, with Australia committing to a $368 billion nuclear submarine procurement plan under the AUKUS agreement. Japan, for the first time since World War II, has authorized the deployment of aircraft carriers, signaling a decisive shift in its military posture.
Additionally, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) has accelerated the deployment of maritime surveillance assets, including the MQ-9B SeaGuardian, to monitor Chinese fleet movements in real time. Joint naval exercises in the Pacific have increased by 47% since 2021, with recent drills involving carrier strike groups from the U.S., the U.K., and Australia aimed explicitly at countering PLAN advances.
At the strategic level, Western nations are pursuing a two-pronged approach: deterrence through force projection and economic containment. The latter involves restricting China’s access to cutting-edge military technologies, particularly in shipbuilding and missile guidance systems. Recent measures have included export controls on high-performance semiconductors and advanced composite materials essential for next-generation warships.
The Future Trajectory: A New Era of Maritime Rivalry
The trajectory of China’s maritime strategy suggests an increasingly assertive posture in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. The likelihood of further PLAN incursions into strategically sensitive areas remains high, with potential next targets including the Southern Ocean and the waters around the U.S. territory of Guam. The extension of China’s military exercises into these zones would represent the final step in achieving the global operational reach necessary for sustained naval hegemony.
Western military strategists are increasingly concerned about the implications of China’s next-generation naval technology, including the development of stealth drone swarms and hypersonic anti-ship missile systems. The recent unveiling of China’s DF-21D and DF-26 “carrier killer” missiles—capable of striking moving naval targets at ranges exceeding 2,500 kilometers—suggests that Beijing is preparing for potential high-intensity naval engagements.
Ultimately, the world is witnessing the opening phase of a new era in naval competition, one in which China is no longer confined to defensive regional operations but is actively positioning itself as a global maritime power. Whether this leads to a long-term strategic realignment or direct military confrontation remains an open question. What is undeniable, however, is that the balance of power on the world’s oceans is shifting at an unprecedented pace, and the global security order must adapt accordingly.
