I think investors should 200% care that the prime contractor,...

I think investors should 200% care that the prime contractor, Hanwha, appear to not want to associate themselves with what EOS say is the most compelling part of the offer. Remember, it is Hanwha and Rheinmetall who are competing, not EOS. What Hanwha took to the competition against Rheinmetall is not the T2000. 1. the picture clearly shows this, 2. you wouldn't have a video released today featuring one of their CEOs saying the T2000 is a new turret released to market. Actually, if you think taking already integrated systems from the Elbit catalogue, proven and sold multiple times, and then taking the pieces that make them work, the fire control system, sights and user interfaces, out and swap with EOS gear is a compelling case for the Australian customer you might need to research the customer's risk appetite a bit more - welcome to prototype!

What EOS are saying and what is a fact are two very different things. So yes, they have taken an already fully integrated Elbit turret - turret, missile, APS, Iron Vision system, training system and then added an RWS, maybe an extra camera/sight, and fire control that already comes with the RWS. So yes, what is their workshare? How does their workshare explain the $$?

You're comment is far from being the final word on that issue.