Yes, you read the article too. I can look at the picture and see that only the RWS belongs to EOS. The other sensor is the Elbit sensor. Everything else is the Elbit capabilities. Even in EOS's own statements the training is Elbit training software.
So, looking at the photo and reading the article, the only things EOS are adding are the RWS, an extra sensor (IF the do knock the Elbit one in this photo off), a fire control system that already comes with an RWS and the user interface, that's basically an RWS per turreted vehicle in value. That's their words in an article clearly written by them.
I don't know what Hanwha hardly mentions EOS in their advertising. if it was a competitive advantage I'd ask why every Redback advertisement Hanwha has been using for months doesn't mention it. To reinforce my point, two of the three call outs here are Elbit systems already integrated onto their turret.
Regarding the money claims, if they are getting $1B over 8 years (which is only production, not the ongoing maintenance and sustainment), or $125mil/year then that makes EOS content per vehicle acquired in that program at $2.2mil/vehicle (working on 450 vehicles). We also know from the 251 RWS purchase by the Australian Army that an RWS is an average price of $400000. So RWS value for Redback is 450x$400 000=$180 000 000. There's $800mil that needs to be found before we can believe that $1B estimate they're giving the market. Right now that's mostly Elbit capability and therefore $$ unless it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise.
(20min delay)