@IKE , short answer is yes but if you look at the "build the airplane" approach to studying the systems, compare the manual reversion mode in the F-18 to what I think of as the "puppet strings and hydraulic servos" construction of the H-60 flight controls and many other modern airplanes. Those flight control cables in the -60 nudge a little button that moves a pilot valve that makes for a big shot of hydraulic muscle that shoves the primary servo and moves the aerodynamic surface, and the computer helps you fly better mostly by doing something that basically wiggles the far end of that cable in a way the the pilot doesn't feel any feedback*... instead of a computer directly nudging that little button/pilot valve thingy on the primary servos.
It's a distinction with a difference, it's built differently from the drawing board on up, but it's also not completely different. When all the computers and hydraulics in an F-18 crap out, how do the control surfaces move when the pilot moves the control stick to make the airplane pitch or roll? They move the old way...
Unfortunately/obviously the H-60 is just a bit too big and heavy to have a true manual reversion mode- even if you had the world's strongest pilot, with total hydraulic failure then you'd just end up stretching the control cables (or breaking off the cyclic and collective sticks) and not actually moving the aerodynamic surfaces enough to matter. But in the case of many light helicopters, some of them fly okay with a total hydraulic failure and a bit of human muscle. (The reversion mode in the legacy F-18 is reportedly survivable but extremely challenging in real life.)
What's all this stuff matter for naval aviation? It matters for how not to get shot down.
* notwithstanding trim-related functions, which FBW and non-FBW implement pretty similarly