Do carrier-less militaries retain the equipment for carrier operations? "How do jet fighters get to war?" made me wonder if aircraft used by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps for carrier operations retain their carrier equipment when sold to foreign powers who do not operate carriers? 

Pros would be the reduction in weight, repair/maintenance complexity, and cost (why bother paying for equipment you don't use?).

Cons would be engineering complexity (if they're not designed as optional components) or airworthiness (if the components have secondary functions beyond carrier operations).

The initial thought was prompted by a CATOBAR aircraft, but if something like the Harrier has different equipment, that would be relevant, too. What's the reality?
Taking the RAAF F/A-18's for example:


  The Australian Hornets were very similar to the standard US Navy variants, but incorporated a number of minor modifications [including] the deletion of all equipment used to launch the aircraft using catapults.


Even though they retain the tailhook, if they landed on a carrier, they won't be able to takeoff.

The tailhook serves the same function as on the land-based F-15 and F-16, provide arrested landing capability for emergency situations.

(Source) F-16 arrested landing.

As for the Harrier, all the foreign operators were navies. So, export Harriers were used on carriers. (Rhyming unintentional.)

The carrier-borne Rafale fighter jet will retain its carrier capability when sold to the Indian Navy.