Anecdotally, at least in the hiring environment of the last decade, it hasn't much mattered whether you were a heavy/P-8 guy, or a fighter/tacair type. Greater TT in the P-8, much less turbine multi-PIC. Less TT in fighters, all multi-PIC. Caveats apply (VT tour for P-8 guys). The airlines also have different competitive mins depending on background. Where I work, you probably needed 10k+ hrs and 5k+ of PIC with a civilian only background when I was hired. Heavy mil aircraft, right around 2500-3000 total/half that PIC. Fighter types, ATP mins. So I think it kinda balances out that way, indirectly (or maybe directly?). I would absolutely NOT make a USN or military platform choice decision based on what you think would be more competitive for airlines. Luck and timing being biggest factors, you never know if you'll hit your window to "get out", and the airline music has ground to a stop. And when they're hiring, it doesn't matter anyway. I'd caveat that by saying Helos, other than a few glorious years during the most major hiring decade of history, are a very long road to get to a major.
*oh yeah, don't take the numbers I listed as gospel. Those are rough estimates, since none of us normal pilots are privy to the actual HR data.....just anecdotal based on experience levels of guys from new hire training at the time I was hired, and the interview day. The numbers (whatever they may be) can and often do change over time, based on demand. Company X needs lots more pilots? Mins decrease. Market/economy/travel demand forecast/bookings change, and company X now needs less new pilots? Mins go to the stratosphere. It's cyclical, over and over again.