behind a paywall and so I couldnt see the details of the...

behind a paywall and so I couldnt see the details of the report.

But if Conroy is talking up 60% local content, and EOS was part of the Tender Consortium, does this imply that the Australian government has proceeded with the option of the EOS turret or awarded Redback the contract on the basis of the EOS turret? If so, surely there is some sort of legal requirement that Hanwha live up to Aus content promises. Particularly as Elbit has had a chequered history with Australian Defence. This should give EOS the leverage in any negotiation.

From EOSs perspective, does the proposition make sense on a reduced build number particularly if there are up front tooling and production costs?

Reference comments from Defence Review Asia below:

Selection of Redback IFV confirms the importance of test & trials - Defence Review Asia

Hanwha might also have achieved a higher level of local content, especially if Defence exercised the “enhanced Australian content” option of a turret from Canberra’s EOS. The baseline solution is from Israel’s Elbit, but a move to EOS would have a major impact on AIC since about half of the value of the vehicle is in the turret.

This is because it contains sensors, the main gun, a remote weapon station, the two SPIKE ATGMs – and all that needs to be protected to a very high degree because of Army’s bizarre decision to stay with a crewed system when the rest of the world is moving to remotely operated ones with everyone inside the hull of the IFV.

Once the people are removed from the equation the turret becomes lighter and cheaper with no degradation in performance because looking at an image from a thermal sight is still the same where one is viewing it while in the turret or from inside the vehicle. The same logic applies to all the weapons and countermeasures.