Deep Respect for Normal Friedman - many of his books on my shelf.
My concern with the Type 26, as he even states late in the article - is cost. Type 26 does represent 'high end':
"The Type 26 and ships like it represent the
high end of a future high-low mix. Candidates for the low end include the proposed British Type 31 frigate (yet to be chosen from among three competitors) and the French Frégate de Défense et d’Intervention (FDI), with its tumblehome, wave-piercing bow. But the low-end ships have minimal air defense, and their survivability in a high-end fight appears poor without upgraded antiair systems. That raises the question of whether navies will wind up paying for upgrades that raise the cost of low-end ships to near that of the high-end ones, because so much of the cost is in these systems rather than the hulls."
All of these competitors will have 'upgraded antiair systems' as part of the requirements common to all. So, while EASR and VLS are costs to be considered in the program, it is not a place where a vendor can stand out from the competition.
And at least one of those Type 31 competitors indicates high capability on a proven platform - and that platform has shown good cost control:
https://www.arrowhead140.com/designhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqsUBl_esVEPart of me is wondering if we have not heard from one of the FFG(x) competitors because they are weighing something like this against a version of their own design.
Cost, both acquisition and through-life, will be critical to winning selection in FFG(x)