You're just confirming what I said: "In exchange for all that factory military hardware". But we're conflating multiple uses of the word "propaganda" here.
Sure, the movie advocates the interests of the military, that's why they accepted to share the equipment, and they wouldn't share if the movie was against their aims. In the US, you can create movies for or against the aims of the government. Private initiative here was seizing an opportunity to do business with the government and pay less for realism.
These two movies wouldn't exist without military approval due to their planned use of military resources for realism/quality. It's a business deal to get low cost, top quality props. Have you seen Maverick? It looks awesome, even if you disagree with the theme. Actually, getting approval from the military is a good thing for the business purpose of the movie, it gives the movie credibility. If I was creating a movie about military success, I'd beg the military to approve it formally!
But in reality, the movie wouldn't exist if the filmmakers hadn't had the idea to produce it, rather than a government commissioning a literal propaganda movie to further their aims. It's a somewhat subtle, but major difference.
We need to immediately end the false moral equivalency between China and the US. It's very easy to come with a fallacious argument and say "it's all the same here as it is there". It's not. Go create a major blockbuster movie in China documenting the government's failures like, let's say, the old "Born on the 4th of July" with the same Tom Cruise and see what happens.