Air-force ownership does not remove naval crewing needs

Does air-force ownership and program secrecy explain the BC-304's small crew and lack of naval-style watches?

It may explain the mistake, but does not justify it; normal operational security can support a much larger, safer crew.

The comment attributes the low crew and absent marines to an air force designing a vessel for missions unlike long naval deployments. Service culture could produce the initial mistake, but naval participation should have exposed the missing watches and damage-control depth. Thousands of people already support the Stargate program, so adding the personnel needed for safe operations would not create secrecy from nothing. A Type 23 anti-submarine example shows that militaries routinely keep sensitive operations quiet without abandoning the people needed to conduct them. The problem is therefore institutional design and manning rather than a valid operational-security trade.