Siggie,
First of all, I'm not trying to start a pis*ing contest!! Having said that....
You start off by asking if an "alleged" report is fact or fiction. I respond along the lines that even if it is fact (and I don't know if it is...) then that doesn't really prove anything! A case of "don't get your hopes up".
You are now saying, in response to my comment, "... The fact that such a report has been asked for shows that the government has, at the best, doubts about the wisdom of scrapping the MPA fleet. Even if the report is only used to prove how expensive it would be to replace them. ....".
First of all, this implies you now believe the "alleged" report to actually exist. Even if it does - who commissioned it? You talk of "the government" having doubts, but was it a report formally commissioned by what you refer to as "the government". Was it an internally commissioned MOD report, in which case it is someone within the MOD (CAS perhaps) who maybe has doubts. You mention BAE, is it a BAE report, in which case it is about possible commercial interests (perhaps a non-solicited bid?), and once again doesn't necessarily reflect a formal government view.
Finally, even if it was a "government", for which case I suppose you should read MOD minister (i.e. politician), commissioned report, it doesn't necessarily mean they have doubts. It could alternatively mean that they know some people won't let this go (a bit like WEBF and his Sea Harrier) and this is just further ammunition for the "no" to MPA camp the next time it comes up in an interview/discussion/debate.
For what it is worth, these are my own thoughts. The UK will eventually have to get back into the LRMPA game, but maybe at nowhere near the level of sophistication we previously had. Perhaps something along the lines of the CN-235 mentioned. It will not happen for at least another 5-6 years, on the basis it will require new money (unless something else is cut to pay for it) and we are currently broke, and the current band of politicians won't want to be seen to be doing a U-turn.
In terms of The Helpful Stackers comments on the SDSR, I believe the current government decided that the Nimrod MRA4 was non viable, but rather than saying it was a dead duck but we still need an MPA, came up with the line that "we don't need MPA" to help justify getting rid of the white elephant that the MRA4 had become. However, as I said, those are just my personal thoughts on the matter.