Originally, the F-22 was going to be built mainly of carbon fiber, this was changed to titanium to reduce cost. This was in the 1980s... CF is MUCH cheaper today and almost commodity material used extensively in civilian aircraft.
And it would probably interest OP to know that it's not just basic strength-versus-mass where carbon shines. With metallics, you have that strength in every direction. But most parts only need to be strong in a limited number of directions. With carbon, you can tailor the part to provide strength only in the directions needed, which means you're using less material. More weight savings on top of what you already gained* by switching to carbon in the first place.
[*] It ain't all sunshine and roses. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Substantial strength reductions due to heat and moisture absorption are real. Other factors exist that'll ruin your weight savings too. A former boss of mine designed a carbon nacelle inlet lip for a popular airliner, but it was a short haul aircraft, which means lots of trips, which means lots of abuse from careless ground handlers. After accounting for that, it weighed as much as his reference aluminum design. The nacelle went into production with aluminum inlet lips.
Found a cool table for this, sort by "specific strength": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength#Examples
Originally, the F-22 was going to be built mainly of carbon fiber, this was changed to titanium to reduce cost. This was in the 1980s... CF is MUCH cheaper today and almost commodity material used extensively in civilian aircraft.