There’s only one grocer’s apostrophe, though!

Or is it a grocers’ apostrophe?

If you are referring to “It’s our last”… while “its” (possessive) does not have the apostrophe, “it’s” (contraction for “it is” or “it has”) does have one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its

its
–pronoun
the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective): The book has lost its jacket. I’m sorry about its being so late.

it’s
1. contraction of it is: It’s starting to rain.
2. contraction of it has: It’s been a long time.

—Confusables note
A very common mistake is to write its (the possessive form of it) when it’s (the short form of it is or it has) is required: It’s [it is] unclear what he meant. It’s [it has] been wonderful seeing you again.

But do not use it’s for it has when has is the main verb: It has a strong flavor; use it sparingly cannot be written as It’s a strong flavor…

An equally common mistake is to use it’s for the possessive, probably because ordinary possessives of nouns are formed with an apostrophe: the dog’s coat; Mary’s cell phone. But the possessive its is a pronoun, not a noun, and, like other possessive pronouns (his, hers, yours, and theirs), is written without that particular bit of punctuation: I have to fix my bike. Its front wheel came off.

—Usage note
While it is possible to use its as a predicate adjective (The cat is angry because the bowl you’re eating out of is its!) or as a pronoun meaning “that or those belonging to it” (Your notebook pages are torn. Borrow my notebook—its aren’t), such use is rare and in most circumstances strained.

If the Marine Corp are getting them nobody hold any illusions about them flying again. There is significant avionics differences between a GR7/9 and an AV8B/+, if they are going to America they will be parted out to keep the current AV8B fleet alive. Certainly major airframe and engine components would be useful to the Americans.

A few of the USMC Harriers are the non-APG-65 “Night Attack” version… these could use most of the airframe components of the GR.9, as well as the engines and some of the flight controls, etc.

Most of the USMC Harriers are the APG-equipped “B+” version… these can really only use the wings, engines, and flight controls. The fuselage is somewhat different, but some of the aft fuselage can be used.

A bit more that I’ve managed to obtain on the original purchase. Rhodesia had hoped to obtain newly built Agusta-Bell’s from Italy as they had successfully aquired aircraft from Italy in the past. This was unsuccessful but they were put in contact with a US company which delt with surplus aircraft. They were marketing 40 ex-Israeli machines which were not airworthy but they agreed to have a number of them made airworthy. Due to the political situation Rhodesia could not send anyone to inspect these machines and they had to rely on an American engineer for this. When these aircraft arrived in Rhodesia they were found to be in a poor state with many more hours on the airframe than they were led to believe. This led to the rumour that it was a three way deal with Agusta supplying Israel with new built machines and Rhodesia getting the old ones from Israel.

And not a Lebanese militia member in sight.

However… to answer flanker30’s question… EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT SAYING C-295 AEW&C IS FOR CARRIER USE:

Several carrier aircraft have or had folding vertical fins… the A-3 Skywarrior and the S-3 Viking for example.

Link to a large pic of an A-3 with tail folded:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Army/Douglas-RA-3B-Skywarrior/1619789/L/

Link to a pic of an A-3 in flight:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Navy/Douglas-EA-3B-Skywarrior/1194430/L/

You can see the fold joint on the tall tail of an S-3 clearly here, just above the numbers on the fin:

A good pic of an S-3 with both wings and tail fin folded:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Navy/Lockheed-S-3A-Viking/1593426/L/

CFTs are basically permanent weight added to the airframe… even when empty. They also do add measurable drag… even though less than drop tanks.

Drop tanks can (and are) dropped in real combat if hard maneuvering is required… and thus add NO weight or drag penalty when it matters most.

CFTs also cover maintenance access panels, which increases maintenance time and adds more complexity (things that can go wrong) to those maintenance tasks (gotta remove the CFTs before starting the repair job).

Ummm… is there a lack of english language comprehension around here?

I mention the E-2, and that THE E-2 operates off carriers just fine, to show that the C295 is even MORE suitable for that sized rotodome… and suddenly people are inventing some sort of statement that they attribute to me claiming the C295 AEW&C is to be a carrier aircraft.

Something I never said or even implied!

Incomprehensible!

It looks a bit larger than an E-2… and those operate just fine from carriers with the apparently same sized rotodome… this should have no problems at all.

The rotodome actually adds some lift, canceling out the weight of the dome & support structures.

The “balance-beam” doesn’t.

ps: FYI RAN recently bought RFA Largs Bay, which is an LPD and topic of this thread.

Ummm… wrong!!!

Largs Bay is a LSD*, not a LPD… they are two significantly different types of ship, despite the superficial external similarity.

LSD is the abbreviation for Landing Ship, Dock (a cargo/vehicle-emphasized landing ship).

LPD is the abbreviation for Landing Platform, Dock (also called Amphibious Transport, Dock…a troop-emphasized landing ship).

A LSD has about twice the floodable dock space, more vehicle/cargo storage space, and less than half the troop accommodation (usually 1/3 or so) when compared to a similarly-sized LPD.

* The RN designated it LSD(A), indicating that it was an auxiliary LSD (intended for follow-up operations), not a front-line LSD (intended for opposed combat landing operations).