I think that it's going to change a lot over time. In FS1, the real emphasis would be on bombers because of the lack of effective anti cap weapons, whereas by FS2, the Orion is an anti cap beast all on its own, but is super vulnerable to enemy bombers, so you'd want to fill up mainly on interceptors.
I don't think there would be much of a change on basis of armaments, after all the design of the Orion - with its easily identifiable "windward"/"leeward"-split for combat - didn't change; the armament change to FS2 equalizes the sides of the Orion somewhat with 1 BGreen and 1 TerSlash on the hangar side, 1 BGreen and 2 TerSlash on the on the armoured side (and one BGreen on turret01 which can be turned to either side), but doesn't change that if its maneuvered like in the FS2 intro, the bulk of the ship can protect launching fighters during combat.
This makes the Orion suited for both aggressive close quaters combat and defensive deployments, regardless of weapons.
(the split is also what would have made the Typhon an effective combatant against it, as the Typhon has its turrets placed in a way that it could move over or under a Orion in broadside position while bringing a plurality of its turrets to bear. Let's a please take a momement to remember the subtlties that fell by the wayside thanks to the introduction of GIANT LAZORS.)
What would have prompted a change however would be introduction of a complementary destroyer/carrier class in the Hecate, which is much more suited for the long range support and carrier duties - meaning that strategic roles in a battlegroup would shift away for an Orion, e.g. removing a dedicated scout squadron and filling its place with a squadron that more closely related to a combat role.
Now if the premise is 10 squadrons, and no complementary carrier for late FS1, I would split the squadrons like this:
Strategic Operations Wing - 7
(These are the squadrons mainly for the missions away from the mothership)
- 1 dedicated Scout Squadron (Valkyrie/Loki; Apollo for the recon-in-force missions) - as scouting roles include not just spotting enemies but also testing their capabilities, I think a dedicated squadron for that is in order
- 2 dedicated Long Range Combat Patrol Squadrons (Hercules/Apollo)
- 1 dedicated Rapid Response Squadron (Valkyrie)
- 1 dedicated Ship Support Squadron (Athena/Hercules) - a dedicated squadron to supplement cruiser groups on their missions, performing hit and run attacks or outflanking the enemy battle line; canonically we don't see much aggressive cruiser deployment but the Fenris makes for a good ship of the line and the Aten could make a good line breaker (detachable ramming spikes
)
- 1 dedicated Anti-Ship Bomber Squadron (Zeus) - the Zeus is just the most swiss-army knife of the FS1 bomber crop in terms of payload capacity
- 1 dedicated Anti-Installation/Anti-Capital Bomber Squadron (Medusa/Ursa) - engaging an installation is different mission profile from taking on a ship, so it makes sense to me to seperate that into a dedicated squadron
Tactical Operations Wing - 3
(There are the squadrons for the missions in tandem with the mothership)
- 1 dedicated Combat Interceptor Squadron (Valkyrie)
- 1 dedicated Close Range Support Squadron (Hercules)
- 1 dedicated Close Range Anti-Ship Squadron (Medusa/Ursa)
As for FS2, some of the strategic roles would probably transfer to Hecate (most likely the dedicated Scout Squadron and the Ship Support Squadron) and be replaced (if possible) with Squadrons already part of the Tactical Operations Wing.