EOS Charts, page-2508

That's the turret for the competition the Australian Army did. Look at the two sight or camera systems. The one on the RWS is EOS's sight. The one on the turret is not. You can see the same sight on the Elbit website and on basically every Elbit turret. So that turret is not what they say in the article: the T2000 is a co-development with Israel-based defense company Elbit Systems that combines the structure and electric drive hardware of the Elbit MT30 MK2 30 mm unmanned weapon station with the fire control system (FCS), sensors, and user interface from the EOS Remote Weapon Station (RWS) range.

But even if I give them a pass I don't' see the value to the company and much relevance for shareholders. The turret still have an Elbit designed shell, Elbit-designed active protection system (in fairness, this was specified by Australia but it's already integrated by Elbit so EOS shouldn't be messing with it), Elbit-designed Iron Vision system they talk about, Elbit-designed electric drive hardware, Elbit-designed missile launcher (from the original) for the Rafael missile... EOS gets to put in their fire control system and user interface and an RWS. The RWS already comes with a fire control system and user interface. So where's the money? Is it just adding some margin and passing it on? The value add to EOS basically adds up to one extra sight (if they swap the Elbit sight in that photograph for their own) and doing what they already do. They will either have to pay Elbit up front or later through some sort of royalty. So my view, the T2000 brings a bit more than an RWS sale to the shareholder but also a lot of money they need to pay Elbit.