I don't know. I do know that the first aeroplane was days away from delivery at the time of the announcement, and was to be followed by a further two over the next few weeks. There was no suggestion at the time that the RAF had no intention of NOT flying them (quite the reverse).
I also remember a couple of weeks after that we had the Aldershot MP (defence specialist) visit the Harrier Team at Farnborough who explained that one of the reasons the Harrier had been dumped in the SDSR was that it couldn't carry <a particular weapon>. When challenged, he checked his notes and confirmed that he had been explicitly brief this fact by the MoD (I think he named the Perm Sec, but I'm not certain). One of the audience then went to his filing cabinet and produced his copy of the <weapon> 555 conference report and <EA signed> release documentation for that weapon integration on the GR9/9A showing that it not only *could* carry it, but had been formally cleared by the RAF EA to do so.
So I remain sceptical. I believe the reality is what Hammond originally said - it was a short-term cost savings measure. I believe he changed his subsequent position when it became clear that he would have to spend public money to fill the capability gap he had created by cancelling MRA4, and that he would have to spend substantially more filling the gap than he saved in the cancellation.
That he'd be spending money with a foreign contractor rather than a domestic one merely takes a gross abuse of public money and adds a charge of treason. I honestly believe it's time we returned to the proven, traditional people-performance measures in times like this. A few months being toirtured in the Tower followed by public (televised) hanging, drawing and quartering might have encouraged higher standards of decision making in his successors...
YMMV,
PDR