My question is pretty much the title. I tried two approaches to get local maxima for the $\operatorname{sinc}$ function (I feel it's safe to assume that to know where local minima and maxima of $\operatorname{sinc}$ are the same as to know where the local maxima of $\operatorname{sinc}²$ are).
The first one is by calculating the derivative with respect to the argument, which gives $$ x^{-1}\cos{x}-x^{-2}\sin{x}=0\implies\tan{x}=x, $$ and, as I understand, you can't solve that thing analytically. I figured that, since the minima and maxima of the $\sin$ function are of the form $x_n=\pi/2+ n\pi$, then for $\operatorname{sinc}²$ the maxima would be $x_n$ for $|n|>1$.
However, when solving the first equation numerically (by trial and error) I find that the maxima are close to $x_n$ but are not exactly $x_n$. This page I found tells the same story.
So, why do the maxima of $\operatorname{sinc}²$ not fall exactly on $x_n$?
Looking at the graphs of $\tan(x)$ and $x$, it looks like there are roots near and less than $(n+\frac12)\pi$.
Suppose $x_n$ is close to $(n+\frac12)\pi$, so $x_n = (n+\frac12)\pi-d_n$.
Then $(n+\frac12)\pi-d_n =\tan((n+\frac12)\pi-d_n) =\tan(\pi/2-d_n) =\frac1{\tan(d_n)} $.
If $d_n$ is small, then $\tan(d_n) \approx d_n $ so $(n+\frac12)\pi-d_n =\frac1{\tan(d_n)} \approx \frac1{d_n} $ so, as a first approximation, $d_n \approx \frac1{(n+\frac12)\pi} $.
By iterating, you can get more accurate approximations.
I remember about 50 years ago finding a paper by Hardy in an 1930's English math journal (maybe JLMS) analyzing the roots of $\tan)x) = x$.
This is the kind of analysis there, though, of course, done much better.