Correct.
I was drifting off into an old (90's era) dispute regarding why a Blackhawk variant was NOT chosen for the replacement for the CH-46, Marines, as it was for the CH-46 Navy, VERTREP, and got myself a bit mixed up. UH-1Y was never going to be the prime vertical assault aircraft. Sorry for the confusion there.
Part of why the Marines were not in the least bit interested was that the doctrinal squad of 13 wasn't going to fit in a Blackhawk ... but the real reason was that V-22 was coming.
In the mid to late 90's, the engine and airframe issues with the Frog were serious business. Boeing was approached with the idea of repoening that line, and as I understand it, the amount (in billions of dollars, half a billion, two billion? can't recall which figure was correct) Boeing (Philadelphia) was going to charge NAVAIR to do that was, this being Clinton years austerity, a non starter. At that point, V-22 was all that was possible, since in about 1999 or so, the last CH-53E was delivered from Sikorsky ... there had been some talk about going "all CH-53" but I don't think the Marines, nor NAVAIR, were ever serious about that.
"Marinized Blackhawk" (CH-60S now MH-60S) for VERTREP was a crap idea and remains a crap idea ... but since that is what was purchased, the Navy had adapted and gotten good service from a basically sound airframe.
How doesthat digression fit into this topic? The issue of cost for things that move people, parts, and petrol for a Rapid Reaction mission. The Clinton era austerity (in a relative sense) drove some curious DoD decisions (see also the KMAX non night, non IFR proposal for VERTREP flown by contract civ pilots, another idiotic idea, Clinton era, mid 90's, a decision finally scrapped) on final equipment and kit acquisition ... similar to the general fiscal austerity AUS faces on an annual basis while having to make hard decisions, program and otherwise, on how to get the kit needed for the mission with scarce dollars.