How about a new force - do they not get to create traditions?
e.g. US Space Force now, or the USAF in 1947, or the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/etc in the 1918-1920s?
Are those traditions less valid? I know the Navy says "the Air Force has habits" but really, aren't traditions just codified habits?
If the Canadian Marines were to stand up today, we might be having a different conversation. That's a new requirement with a new force generated to suit that need. They may borrow or develop their own traditions, but that is something that occurs organically.
CAF Unification took 3 standing forces, stripped them to the bare metal, foisted an image and branding no one wanted, and threw the rest in the bin.
For example, my Corps outdates both the RCN and the RCAF, however our "Branch" emblem was forced to encorporate the Naval and Air Force elements in iut branding because "there is only one Comms Branch" as per 1971 edict.
Within the C&E Branch now, ATIS/CELE are chomping at the bit to go back to being under the Air Ops umbrella, Sig Int Spec/Cyber Ops are more involved with CFIOG than anyone else, the RCN held firm with their communicators from day one, and the RCCS trades are pretty much managed and overseen by DLCI. So... why retain the Branch, the manufactured identity, etc?
I might be assuming or generalizing at someone who spent most of their career as a hard Navy trade might not see the same kind of slight (as the RCN pushed back harder than the other 2 services in 1968... and maybe got a few more concessions...who knows), but I welcomed the return of element specific rank structure and was a touch disappointed when the NCM ranks didn't. The RCAF made the right call moving back to the prop for Avr and the pearl grey, but I think if would make sense to see the RCN and CA move back at some point. If the ADF and NZDF haven't collapsed in disarray because of it (I have worked closely with both) I think we can manage.