The congressional “supercommittee” faces a late-November deadline to trim $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit. And there are no encouraging reports of progress — Democrats oppose most spending cuts, and Republicans oppose tax increases.

Still, both sides understand the need to reverse unsustainable spending patterns and historically low taxation. Some sort of grand bargain could contain major spending cuts, meaning slowing the growth of entitlement spending, matched with some revenue increases, such as closing tax loopholes and some tax increases, including allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans.

While targeting spending cuts is an academic exercise for many, it is a very real test for U.S. military leaders. The Pentagon faces deep spending cuts if the supercommittee fails to hit its $1.2 trillion target. Automatic cuts mandate that half the cuts — $500 billion — will come from defense, and another $500 billion will come from other areas of government spending.

More than just military hawks are questioning the idea of imposing such burdens on the Pentagon.

Millions of armchair budgeteers see the massive military budget as an easy target for cuts. But some $440 billion in cuts already have been set in place by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken a toll on equipment as well as budgets.

Much of the hardware across the military branches is approaching the end of its useful life. Aging ships, submarines, fighter jets and other aircraft must be replaced. Accelerated use of equipment in recent years has raised repair and maintenance expenditures.

The average age of Air Force jets is now 23 years. Some transport and refueling aircraft are 40 years old. These systems cannot be kept going forever.

And, with an all-volunteer military, the U.S. must provide reasonable wages and benefits to attract and retain people. More money for people means less money for hardware.

Recognizing the challenges facing the military is not a matter of supporting or opposing recent military actions. The fact is that the U.S. military has an awesome responsibility in securing the safety of America in an increasingly dangerous and rapidly changing world.

This sober reality was part of the message heard last month by those attending the ceremony installing Butler native Adm. Jonathan Greenert as the Chief of Naval Operations.

The pomp of patriotism of the ceremony was accompanied by the sober and humbling reality of the job that Greenert and the heads of the other military branches are facing today.

The complexities and costs involved in designing and building new battleships, carriers, submarines and jet fighters must now be managed within a more uncertain budget climate.

In addition to managing its budget prudently and making tough choices about new equipment programs and fleet sizes, the Navy must retain its sailors and high-ranking, experienced officers. Greenert told the Senate Armed Services Committee in August that after having managed a decade of personnel cuts, which dropped the active duty numbers to 334,000, the Navy “cannot go hollow.”

Greenert and other military leaders must manage increasingly complex operations, all while under the threat of congressional spending reductions or mandated cuts triggered by a failure of the supercommittee.

Some pundits have suggested killing the entire $385 billion F-35 Lightning fighter jet program and canceling plans for a new class of supercarrier in favor of making improvements to the current Nimitz-class carriers.

And in the case of the M1 Abrams tank, the Army is saying it has enough, but Congress might push for more tank production because of pressure from defense contractors and the domestic jobs involved.

Closing many U.S. military bases around the world is a common suggestion for cost savings.

It’s easy for those outside the military service to say “cut, cut, cut.” And, no doubt, given the size of U.S. military budget, there is room for more efficiency and spending reductions. But few armchair budgeteers are privy to the realities that Greenert and other top military leaders are facing.

No matter one’s position as a dove or hawk, defense spending deserves serious, rational consideration in the budget debate.