I see you have poor reading comprehension, because the clearly says the plan to produce it. I plan to become a billionaire in the next couple of years. The reality is that it's bullshit because here's the actual reality of the situation:

Few people understand the remarkably protracted lead times necessary to increase arms production. Two or three years between commitment and delivery of even some basic munitions and materials is standard. Those NATO nations still accustomed to fight at all — meaning mostly the US, UK and France — have focused upon relatively small outputs. The factories do not exist to provide long runs of — for instance — conventional artillery ammunition any time soon.

You're obviously not one of these few people. Furthermore, the article says the following:

Prices for raw materials used in arms production but not mined in EU countries have risen astronomically. The French government recently asked MBDA Missile Systems to increase its production of Mistral air-defense systems from 20 units per month, and has been offered only an increase to perhaps 40 monthly by 2025.

The German armed forces face an ammunition shortfall demanding €20 billion worth of new orders. At the current speed of contract placement, it will be 20 years before this is achieved. Susanne Wiegand, CEO of RENK Group, which makes drivetrains for tanks, said in February that only a trickle of new orders had come in.

Meanwhile, some manufacturers are obliged to struggle against the wider commercial difficulties of their owners. Britain’s Rolls-Royce has cut investment internationally following severe corporate difficulties. It owns the German-based mtu, which provides engines for tanks and armored vehicles. Yet mtu’s efforts to hire more staff and expand production are at odds with Rolls-Royce’s cutbacks elsewhere.

The IISS study concludes that belief in the permanence of America’s protective shield still causes Europe’s governments to shortchange defense. Despite all the fine words since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “no major recapitalization of armed forces or large-scale procurement to address capability has yet materialized” — even in Britain, which beats its chest loudest in defiance of Moscow.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US too struggles to produce munitions in credible quantities for sustained combat. In World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill trumpeted the role of America as “the arsenal of democracy.” Today, Washington is struggling to make good on such a claim. Michael Brenes, a lecturer in history at Yale, has authored a new study that mirrors those of European critics of their own continent’s performance.

I do encourage you to try engaging with reality going forward.